Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39. Section 45 of the Act is a crucial provision for the purpose of this petition. It lay's down the powers and functions of the Chief Executive. The language used in section 45 of the Act shows that the Chief Executive is required to discharge statutory powers and functions as enumerated in the said section. Sections 44 & 45 of the Act thus make the Chief Executive a statutory functionary under the Act and therefore, in the discharge of the statutory powers and functions, it cannot be disputed that he can be made amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

44A. Looking at it from another angle, as already pointed out, the Chief Executive is indisputably a statutory functionary exercising statutory powers and functions as envisaged by section 45 of the Act. The power to make appointments to the posts in the Multi-State Co-operative Society is conferred upon him under Clause (f) of section 45 of the Act which he has to exercise in accordance with the rules made by the Board under Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 42 of the Act, which in other words would mean that the employees of the respondent No. 1 also would hold a statutory status since their appointments are made in accordance with the Statute i.e. Clause (f) of section 45 read with the rules framed by the Board under Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 42. If they thus held a statutory status, any action on the part of the Chief Executive to disturb their statutory status would be infraction of the Statute under which they are appointed, i.e., Section 45(f) of the Act and therefore, such action would be illegal and liable to be struck down by issue of an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

92. We now consider the question whether the contract of service of the petitioner is specifically enforceable. The law in well settled that although the contract of personal service can not be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give such a declaration, the above rule is subject to three recognised exceptions viz. (1) Where it is in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution; (2) Where the worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under the industrial law; and (3) Where the statutory body acts in breach or violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute. The learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vaish College v. Lakshmi Narain, , to show that the contract of service of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1 which is a private body cannot be specifically enforced. However, we have in the first place shown that the respondent No. 1 is not purely a private body. further we have shown that the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 as well as its Chief Executive are statutory functionaries. In particular, we have held that sections 44 and 45 of the Act make the Chief Executive a statutory functionary and, therefore, in regard to the powers and functions conferred upon him under the statute, he is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.