Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurpreet Singh Etc vs Registrar, Cooperative Socieities Etc on 10 April, 2023

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

CWP No. 8916 of 2016 (O&M) 1 2023:PHHC:049531

212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 8916 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of decision : 10.04.2023

Gurpreet Singh & ors, ee Petitioners
versus
Registrar, Coop. Societies & ors, ee Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN kee Present :- Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. B.S.Patwalia, Advocate and Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Raghubir Tejpal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

REE PANKAJ JAIN, J. (QRAL) Petitioners pray for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 08.02.2016 (Annexure P-16) whereby the claim of the petitioners for consideration vis-a-vis the post of Diary Assistants being a Diploma holder stand rejected.

The respondent-MILKFED vide memo dated 21.05.2015 resolved to conduct campus interview for recruitment of students passed out from Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (GADVASU) for various technical posts including that of Management Trainees against the post of Dairy Assisstants. Last date for submission of application was 03.06.2015.

As per the said notice academic qualification prescribed read as under :-

CWP No. 8916 of 2016 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:049531

4. Management 20 B.Tech. (Dairy | 18,000/- (fixed for|In case their performance, work Trainees - Technology) 2 years) and conduct are found against the posts satisfactory during this period of Dairy they will be placed in the regular Assistants pay scale of Rs.10,300-

34,800+3800 GP plus usual allowances as admissible under MILKFED/Milk Union rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that order dated 25.05.2015 issued by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab in exercise of the powers vested vide Rule 28(1) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 whereby the Punjab State Milk Producers Federation Service (Non Common Cadre) Rules, 1985 and the Cooperative Milk Producers Unions Employees Service (Non Common Cadre) Rules, 1996 have been amended is beyond the powers vested with the Registrar. It has been claimed that as per Rule 2.4 of the 1980 Rules ibid the appointing authority is only empowered to prescribe preferential qualification for a particular category of posts and has no power to alter the prescribed qualification.

It has been further submitted that once the initial public notice was issued on 21.05.2015, the prescribed qualification could not have been amended as per the settled proposition of law. Rules of game cannot be allowed to be changed in the midst after the process of selection has already commenced. Further learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that bare perusal of the impugned public notice would reveal that the interview was confined to students of a particular University ie. GADVASU in the present case which a public authority cannot be allowed to that too to the peril of the other candidates who are seeking appointment to public post.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that it is not a case wherein the rules of the game have been changed/altered after the selection has already commenced rather it is a case wherein the rules stand POOJA SHARMA 2023.04.25 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8916 of 2016 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:049531 amended by competent authority before the last date of submission of the applications. He thus submits that once a competent authority ordered amendment in the relevant rules rather a duty was casted upon the MILKFED to issue a corrigendum in sink with the amended rules. It has been further contended that it is not a case wherein the preferential qualification has been prescribed by appointing authority but a situation wherein the Rules itself have undergone change owing to amendment carried out by the competent authority. So far as the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the confining of the selection to the campus students of a particular university reliance has been placed upon orders issued by the Managing Director, MILKFED with the approval of Board of Directors placed on record as Annexure R-2/1 dated 28.05.2015 to submit that since it was only the decision taken after the approval of the Board of Directors that the campus interview was conducted and that too the posts borne out from non cadre rules which are non statutory in nature, the plea raised with respect to the same being public posts cannot be sustained.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

So far as the plea raised with respect to competence of the appointing authority to prescribe preferential qualification is concerned, the argument is completely misplaced. It is not a case wherein the preferential qualification has been prescribed by the appointing authority but it is a case wherein the rule itself stands amended/altered by the competent authority that too exercising its jurisdiction as a delegatee under Rule 28 of the 1963 Rules.

Thus, it cannot be said that there was any alteration in the preferential POOJA SHARMA 2023.04.25 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8916 of 2016 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:049531 qualification. Likewise, it is not a case wherein the prescribed qualification has undergone change after the selection process has begun. Trite it is that the process can be said to have been given to them only after last date of submission. In the present case, admittedly the rules were amended much prior to the last date of submission and thus the reliance placed upon law laid down in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others (2001) 10 SCC 51 is not applicable to the present case.

So far as the plea with respect to the confinement of the public post to the pass outs of a particular university is concerned, admittedly the posts are subject matter of non cadre rules. Respondent is a Cooperative society. Non- cadre rules are non-statutory in nature and thus the plea raised is again misconceived and is dismissed.

Petition stands dismissed.

(PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 10.04.2023 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable : No POOJA SHARMA 2023.04.25 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document