Uttarakhand High Court

Kapil Kumar And Others ......... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 October, 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Writ Petition (S/S) No. 925 of 2021

Kapil Kumar and others                            ......... Petitioners

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                  .......Respondents

Present:
           Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioners.
           Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.
           Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the private respondents.

            Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1194 of 2021

Pravin Kumar                                       ......... Petitioner

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                  .......Respondents

Present:
           Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.
           Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the private respondents.

             Writ Petition (S/S) No. 959 of 2021

Ankit Kumar and another                           ......... Petitioners

                                Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others                 .......Respondents
Present:
           Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioners.
           Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.
           Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the private respondents.

             Writ Petition (S/S) No. 961 of 2021

Vishal Saini and others                           ......... Petitioners

                                Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others                  .......Respondents

Present:
           Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioners.
           Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.
           Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the private respondents.
                                   2




             Writ Petition (S/S) No. 952 of 2021

Ranjan Sandhiyan and others                      ......... Petitioners

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                    ....Respondents

Present:
           Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioners.
           Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.
           Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the private respondents.

                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since, common question of facts and law are

involved in these writ petitions, they are being decided by

the common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders, by

which, their services have been terminated. It is the case of

the petitioners that in all the petitions, they were appointed

by the Management Committee of the Society by a

resolution. They joined the post and worked on it with all

sincerity, but, by the impugned orders, their services were

terminated without affording them opportunity of hearing.

In WPSS No.925 of 2021, it is claimed that advertisement

was issued prior to resolution for appointment of the

petitioner. The status of the cases is as hereunder;

WPSS No. 925 of 2021

(1) Date of resolution by which application for

the post was invited - 21.08.2020.

(2) Date of advertisement - 25.08.2020.

(3) Date of resolution of the management

committee of the respondent no.5by which

application was considered and the

petitioners were found fit for appointment -

21.09.2020.

(4) Date of issuance of appointment letter -

25.09.2020.

(5) Date of joining - 01.10.2020.

(6) Date of resolution of the management

committee of the respondent no.5 for

regularization - 28.12.2020.

(7) Joined as regular employee on 15.01.2021.

(8) Date when services were terminated -

29.06.2021 and consequential orders dated

03.07.2021 and 13.07.2021

All these orders are impugned.

WPSS No. 961 of 2021

(1) Date of resolution of management

committee of respondent no. 5 to engage

the petitioner - 10.04.2020.

(2) Date of joining - 29.04.2020.

(3) Date of resolution of the management

committee of the respondent no.5 for

regularizing of the service of the

petitioner - 28.09.2020.

(4) Date when the petitioners joined after

regularization - 01.10.2020.

(5) Date when the services were terminated

- 19.07.2021 and consequential order

dated 20.07.2021.

Both these orders are impugned in it.

WPSS No. 959 of 2021

(1) Date of resolution of the Management

Committee of respondent no. 5 for engaging

the petitioners - 28.09.2020.

           (2) Date of joining - 01.10.2020

           (3) Date   of    resolution       of    Management

             Committee of the respondent no.5 for

             regularization       of         the    petitioner-

             12.01.2021.

           (4) Date of joining - 30.01.2021.

           (5) Date   of   termination       -19.07.2021     and

consequential order dated 20.07.2021..

Both these orders dated 19.07.2021 and

consequential order dated 20.07.2021 are

impugned.

WPSS No. 952 of 2021

(1) Resolution of Management of Committee of

the respondent no.5 - 09.01.2021.

(2) Date of issue of appointment letter -

20.01.2020.

(3) Date of joining - 27.01.2021.

(4) Date of termination - 19.07.2021 and

consequential order dated 20.07.2021.

Both these orders are impugned.

WPSS No. 1194 of 2021

(1) Date of Resolution of Management of

Committee of respondent no. 5 to engage

the petitioner- 12.01.2021

(2) Date of joining - 30.01.2021.

(3) Date of termination - 19.07.2021 and

consequential order - 20.07.2021.

Both these orders are impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that services of the petitioners have been

terminated based on some complaint but the complaints

were never supplied to the petitioners to give them an

opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel also raised the

following points in his submissions:-

(i) Petitioners were not given any opportunity

to participate in any inquiry.

(ii) If any inquiry was conducted that was

conducted on the back of the petitioners.

Petitioners were not given any opportunity of

hearing despite the fact that the

consequences of the impugned order are

grave. It has evil civil consequences.

(iii) The impugned order makes mention of

office order dated 16.12.2018 passed by the

Registrar, Cooperative Societies, but it is

argued that under Uttarakhand Cooperative

Societies Act, 2003 ("the Act") such powers are

not given to the Registrar. Registrar's powers

are confined under Section 120 of the Act.

(iv) The impugned order has not been passed

by the competent authority.

(v) The orders, terminating the services of

petitioners, should be self contained. Nothing

can be added in it to read it what is not

written in it.

5. In fact, this matter was argued on the earlier

occasion also and the Court had started dictating the

judgment. It so happened that the Court wanted to know

from the learned counsel for the petitioners as to what

would have been the explanation of the petitioners, had

they been afforded opportunity of hearing before

cancellation of their appointment. At that stage, learned

counsel for the petitioners sought time and now in all the

petitions except WP (S/S) No. 1194 of 2021, supplementary

affidavits have been filed by the petitioners. In the

respective supplementary affidavits, the petitioners have

stated that the resolution pertaining to their appointment

was duly approved by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies.

6. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners

raised a few more points in his argument. They are as

hereunder :-

(i) Pursuant to notification dated 16.10.2018,

the procedure is given for appointment in

the societies. It provides that after

completing all the formalities, resolution

will be forwarded to the Registrar, who will

accord his approval. In the instant case,

the resolutions were approved by the

Registrar and thus substantial compliance

of the procedure has been done.

(ii) The Registrar is not an appointing

authority, but under Section 126 of the Act

the Registrar may annul the resolution and

before doing so he may remit the resolution

for reconsideration. But, it is argued that

in the instant case, the resolutions were

not remanded for reconsideration by the

Registrar, instead they were approved.

Now, the appointments of the petitioners

could not have been cancelled. The orders

cancelling the appointment of the

petitioners are bad in the eye of law.

7. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the

petitioner in WP (S/S) No. 1194 of 2021 adopts the

argument of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate.

8. The learned State counsel would refer to staffing

pattern which is issued by the Registrar, Cooperative

Societies, Uttarakhand by letter no. C-128/

PACS/Sta./2018-19 dated 16.10.2018 ("the Notification

dated 16.10.2018") to argue that whole procedure for

appointment is given in the notification dated 16.10.2018.

It has not been followed in the instant matter. It is

submitted that, in fact, pursuant to notification no. 206/

F&RD/ Cooperative/2001/ Dehradun dated 23.07.2001,

the Registrar has been conferred the powers under Section

122 of the Act. Accordingly, the Registrar notified the

procedure on 16.10.2018, which was not followed while

appointing the petitioners, hence, the impugned orders

were passed, which are in accordance with law.

9. The learned State counsel further argued that

the petitioners have alternate remedy available under the

Act. In WP (S/S) No. 925 of 2021, the remedy lies under

Section 98 of the Act and in all other petitions, the

petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy under Section

126 of the Act. The State counsel would further submit

that, in fact, while making resolution for appointment, the

reservation policy has not been followed. No advertisement

was issued because the advertisement should have wide

publicity giving all the details of the posts, qualifications,

pay-scales, etc., which has not been done in the instant

case. Appointments were made without following the

procedure, hence, the impugned orders by which such

appointments have been cancelled are valid.

10. Mr. Vipul Sharma appeared for the caveator. He

would submit that the Registrar has been conferred the

power under Section 122 of the Act. Whole procedure for

recruitment has been laid down, which has not been

followed in the instant case.

11. Factual position is not much in dispute. It has

already been narrated as hereinbefore.

12. In WP (S/S) No. 925 of 2021, it is the case of the

petitioners that the advertisement was made. The Court

will revert to this advertisement in a little while, but in

other writ petitions while passing the resolutions for

appointment, even advertisements were not issued.

13. In WP (S/S) No. 925 of 2021, the appointments

were cancelled by the order of the Registrar. In other

petitions, the orders cancelling the appointments were

passed by the District Assistant Registrar and the

consequential orders were passed by the Managing

Director.

14. Reference has been made to Sections 120 and

122 of the Act. They are as hereunder:-

"120. Qualification for appointment as secretary, manager, etc. of co-operative societies. - (1) No person shall be appointed by a cooperative society as a Chief Executive (other than Managing Director of Apex Society who will be a Government nominee) secretary, manager, accountant or as any other officer to be paid or remunerated by the society unless he possesses such qualifications and furnishes such security, if any, as may be specified by the Registrar from time to time in respect of any co-operative society or class of societies.

(2) Any person appointed in contravention of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall be liable to removal from his office by the Registrar.

122. Authority to control employees of co- operative societies. -(1) The State Government may constitute an authority or authorities, in such manner as may be prescribed, for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of co-operative societies, or a class of co-operative societies, and may require such authority or authorities to frame regulations regarding recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of service including disciplinary control of such employees and, subject to the provisions contained in Section 70, settlement of dispute between an employee of a co-operative society and the society.

(2) The regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the approval of the State Government and shall, after such approval, be published in the Gazette, and take effect from the date of such publication and shall supersede any regulations made under Section 121.

(3) Direct recruitment of employee of Class III and IV at District level shall be made by the committee constituted by the Registrar and procedure laid down by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

In the Direct recruitment of Employees of Class I and II the Chairman of the concerned society shall be a member of Selection Board/Committee."

15. A bare reading of Section 120 of the Act would

reveal that the Registrar may prescribe qualifications for

appointment of a person in the societies under the Act.

Section 120(2) of the Act prescribes the consequences, if

the provisions of Section 120(1) of the Act are not followed.

Section 122 of the Act empowers the State Government to

constitute an authority or authorities for the recruitment,

training and disciplinary control of the employees of the

cooperative societies.

16. In the State of Uttarakhand by notification dated

23.07.2001, the Registrar has been conferred with the

power under Section 122 of the Act. This notification reads

as hereunder:-

"No. 206/F&RD/Cooperative/2001 Dated Dehradun, July 23, 2001

NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power under section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (U.P. Act No. XI of 1966) read with section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (Act no. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to rescind the notification no. 366-GA/12-3-36- 71, dated 4-3-1972 published in the U.P. Gazette on 24- 2-1973 containing the rules framed therein with the name of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board under the aforesaid Act no. XI of 1966.

The Governor is further pleased to notify that all the Cooperative Societies of Uttaranchal within the purview of section 122 of the said Act and rules, made therein shall be regulated and controlled by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, Dehradun In pursuance of the above provisions, this notification shall come into force immediately from the date of its publication in the Gazette."

17. Pursuant to the Notification dated 23.07.2001,

the Registrar issued the Notification dated 16.10.2018

laying down the entire procedure for appointment. In fact,

in this Notification dated 16.10.2018, Section 120 of the

Act has been referred to, to lay down the procedure

whereas such arrangement is made by the Registrar under

Section 120 as well as Section 122 of the Act. Under

Section 120 of the Act, the Registrar is empowered by

virtue of the Act itself, and under Section 122 of the Act,

the Registrar has been given authority to prescribe the

procedures for appointment, training, etc. of the employees

of the cooperative societies by virtue of the Notification

dated 23.07.2001.

18. In the Notification dated 16.10.2018, the

procedure is given under Sr. No. 8 for appointment in the

societies. According to it, the following steps should be

taken:-

(i) In cases of substantive vacancies, the

Management Committee, Administrator or

Administrative Committee shall forward a

proposal for filling up the vacancies to the

District Assistant Registrar.

(ii) The District Assistant Registrar having satisfied

with the justification to fill up the vacancies,

shall forward the proposal with his clear

recommendations to the Deputy Registrar for

approval.

(iii) After approval having been received from the

Deputy Registrar, the vacancy shall be

published in local newspaper. The advertisement

shall specify the number of vacancies, pay-scale,

educational qualifications, age limit, preferential

qualifications, reservation position and the

procedure for appointment.

19. A Selection Committee has also been constituted

in the Notification dated 16.10.2018. According to it, the

following shall be the constitution of the Selection

Committee:-

(a) District Assistant Registrar of the District

concerned - Chairman

(b) Chairman of the concerned PACS

(Primary Agriculture Credit Society) - Member

(c) Any Gazetted Officer of the Scheduled Caste

or Schedule Tribe category as Nominated by

the Deputy Registrar of the region - Member

(d) Secretary of the concerned PACS

(Primary Agriculture Credit Society)- Coordinator

20. At Sr. No. 8 (2) of the notification dated

16.10.2018, the procedure for recruitment has been given.

According to it, based on the educational qualifications,

merit list shall be prepared and those higher in merit shall

be selected. The procedure for recruitment shall be in the

manner as hereunder:-

(i) After selection, entire record including

the advertisement, applications, proceedings for

selection committee shall be forwarded to the

Registrar through the Deputy Registrar.

(ii) The Deputy Registrar shall carefully

examine and thereafter forward them to the

Registrar along with his clear recommendations.

(iii) It is only after the approval of the

Registrar that the appointment letter shall be

issued.

21. In WP (S/S) No. 925 of 2021, it is the case of

the petitioners that an advertisement was issued. It is

Annexure No. 4. This advertisement is not as per the

Notification date 16.10.2018. It does not reveal the

pay-scale, recruitment procedure, reservation position,

preferential qualification and age limit.

22. Except WP (S/S) No. 1194 of 2021, according

to the petitioners, the resolution appointing the petitioners

were forwarded to the Registrar, who had approved it. Does

it mean that the appointment is legal despite the procedure

notified on 16.10.2018 having not been followed? A related

question is, as to whether it is irregular appointment or is

it illegal appointment?

23. In the instant cases, the appointments were

not made as per the procedure prescribed by Notification

dated 16.10.2018. Advertisements were not issued, except

WP (S/S) No. 925 of 2021. The advertisement which was

issued in WP (S/S) No. 925 of 2021, was not as per the

Notification dated 16.10.2018. It does not reveal, the whole

things; it does not reveal the procedure; the selection

committee was not constituted as required and before that,

in fact, the proposal to fill up the vacancies was not

forwarded by the management committee to the District

Assistant Registrar as required by the Notification dated

16.10.2018.

24. As per the Notification dated 16.10.2018, first

and foremost, the vacancies position was required to be

approved by the Deputy Registrar and it is only thereafter

an advertisement could have been issued, which was not

done. The procedure was not adopted.

25. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated

that the Registrar is competent to prescribe the procedure

by virtue of the Notification dated 23.07.2001 issued by the

State Government under Section 122 of the Act

empowering the Registrar as a Prescribed Authority to

make provisions with regard to appointment, recruitment,

training, etc. of the employees of the cooperative societies.

The appointments were not as per the Rules made in this

behalf.

26. The law is well settled that if the appointment

is made in total disregard of the constitutional Scheme as

well as the recruitment rules framed by the employer, the

recruitment would be illegal.

27. In the case of State of M.P. and others v. Lalit

Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575, this aspect has been

discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 12 and

13 of its judgment, which are as hereunder:-

"12. The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be: Is there any distinction between "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointment"? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to.

13. In National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh1 it has been held: (SCC pp. 500-01, paras 23-25).

1. (2006) 5 SCC 493 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1152

"23. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the appointments were irregular and not illegal, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. They were appointed only on the basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not followed. Even the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. In view of the ban on employment, no recruitment was permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the appellant had not been maintained. Even cases of minorities had not been given due consideration............................................. ...................................................................

(emphasis supplied)

28. In the case of Satya Prakash and others v.

State of Bihar and others, (2010) 4 SCC 179, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had an occasion to interpret the distinction

between irregular and illegal appointment and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had held as hereunder:-

"10. Necessity of keeping in mind the distinction between regularisation and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence has also been highlighted by this Court by referring to the following passage from R.N. Nanjundappa case2 which reads as follows: (Nanjundappa case2 SCC page 416 para 26)

"26. ... If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality

2. (1972) 1 SCC 409

cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been somenon- compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment." (emphasis supplied)

29. In the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and

another v. State of Assam and others, (2013) 2 SCC 516,

the Hon'ble Court observed " The aforesaid authorities

clearly lay down the principle that when there is

violation of the recruitment rules, the recruitment is

unsustainable".

30. In the instant case, before filling up the

vacancy, the following requirements of recruitment have

not been followed:

(i) The proposal to fill up vacancy was not

submitted by the management committee to

the District Assistant Registrar and the

District Assistant Registrar did not forward

it for approval of the Deputy Registrar.

(ii) The Deputy Registrar did not approve the

proposal to fill up the vacancy.

(iii) Except in WP (S/S) 925 of 2021, in no

other case, advertisement was issued. Even

in WP(S/S) No. 925 of 2021, the

advertisement is not as per the notification

dated 16.10.2018.

(iv) The Selection Committee as constituted by

the notification dated 16.10.2018 has not

been constituted to consider the candidature

of the applicants.

(v) The entire record of the recruitment including

the advertisement, application, proceedings

had not been produced to the Deputy

Registrar for seeking approval of the

Registrar.

31. The procedures as prescribed have not been

followed while appointing the petitioners. The

appointments have been made in complete violation of the

notification dated 16.10.2018. The appointments are

illegal, it is not irregular. It is de hors of the procedure.

32. The question is as to whether the petitioners

ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing

before cancelling the appointments?

33. Undoubtedly, the principle of natural justice,

audi alterem partem has great significance, but it is also

settled principle of law that it is not a mere formality.

34. This Court has already concluded that the

appointments of the petitioners were illegal. Now if the

impugned orders are set aside on the ground that the

petitioners had not been given an opportunity of hearing,

before cancelling the appointments, it would result in

revival of the appointment orders, which are illegal. Should

it be done? Or can it be done? In the case of M.C. Mehta v.

Union of India and others (1999) 6 SCC 237, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed "The above case is a clear

authority for the proposition that it is not always

necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely

because the order has been passed against the

petitioner in breach of natural justice. The Court can

under Article 32 or Article 226 refuse to exercise its

discretion of striking down the order if such striking

down will result in restoration of another order passed

earlier in favour of the petitioner and against the

opposite party, in violation of the principles of natural

justice or is otherwise not in accordance with law."

35. Further, in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

"19. Learned Senior Counsel for Bharat Petroleum contended that once natural justice was violated, the Court was bound to strike down the orders and there was no discretion to refuse relief and no other prejudice need be proved.

20. It is true that in Ridge v. Baldwin3 it has been held that breach of the principles of natural justice is in itself sufficient to grant relief and that no further de facto prejudice need be shown. It is also true that the said principles have been followed by this Court in

3. 1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66, HL

several cases but we might point out that this Court has not laid down any absolute rule. This is clear from the judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan . After stating (at SCC p. 395, para

24) that "principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed" and that "non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary", Chinnappa Reddy, J. also laid down an important qualification as follows: (SCC p. 395, para 24) "As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs." (emphasis supplied)

21. It is, therefore, clear that if on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of the principles of natural justice.

36. In the case of State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar

Singh and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 847, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court discussed the necessity of observance of

the principle of natural justice and concluded as

hereunder:

"39. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals:

(1) Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.

(2) Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest.

4. (1980) 4 SCC 379

(3) No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice.

(4) In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person.

(5) The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice."

37. On this point, the Court wanted to know from

the learned counsel for the petitioners as to what is the

basis of the claim of the petitioners? To it, it is submitted

that, in fact, the Registrar is the appointing authority and

he approved the appointment of the petitioners and it is

the Registrar, who could have otherwise annulled the

resolution under Section 126 of the Act, which he had not

done in the instant case.

38. It is true that under Section 126 of the Act,

the Registrar is empowered to annul a resolution. In fact,

there is a whole procedure given to it. Section 126 of the

Act is as hereunder:-

"126. Registrar's power to annul resolution of a co-operative society or cancel order passed by an

officer of a co-operative society in certain cases. - The Registrar may -

(i) annul any resolution passed by the Committee of Management, or the general body of any co- operative society: or

(ii) cancel any order passed by an officer of a co-

operative society:

if he is of the opinion that the resolution or the order, as the case may be, is not covered by the objects of the society, or is in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the society, whereupon every such resolution or order shall become void and inoperative and be deleted from the records of the society:

Provided that, the Registrar shall, before making any order, require the Committee of Management, general body or officer of the co- operative society to reconsider the resolution, or as the case may be, the order, within such period as he may fix but which shall not be less than fifteen days, and if he deems fit may stay the operation of that resolution or the order during such period.

Applicability. - The Registrar can annul a resolution of the General body if he is of the opinion that the resolution is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. A party aggrieved by such resolution is entitled to invoke the powers of the Registrar and request him to annual the resolution."

39. It is the case of the petitioners that resolution

for appointment of the petitioners was forwarded to the

Registrar, who approved that. But, then, if de hors of rules

any proposal is submitted and approval is sought, does it

mean that such approval validates all the proceedings? It is

not. Mere approval of the Registrar does not validate the

illegality which had imbedded in the entire procedure. The

vacancies could not have been published without prior

approval of the Deputy Registrar; the advertisements

should have been made in quite detail, but it has not been

done. The selection could have been done by the selection

committee, but it was not constituted. Therefore, merely