important points
Proper intimation to the employment exchange regarding the vacancy and a request for eligible candidates is sufficient compliance of Rule 21 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Employees (Terms of Working Conditions) Rules, 1976.
Appointments of the entire batch cannot be terminated merely because few selectees were related to the then Managing Director of the Bank.

Headnote:(a)Service Law – Public appointment – Principles to be followed in public appointments discussed. (Para 20)
       (1994) 4 SCC 165; (2002) 3 SCC 146; (2004) 7 SCC 112; (2007) 1 SCC 408 – Relied upon.
       (b)Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1976 – Rule 21 – Intimation to the employment exchange and calling for a list of candidates is mandatory – Advertisement in the local or all India newspapers is optional – Proper intimation to the employment exchange regarding the vacancy and a request for eligible candidates is sufficient compliance of Rule 21. (Para 25)
       (c)Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1976 – Rule 21 – In view of the large number of vacancies and urgency in filling up the same due to administrative reasons, after getting proper sanction from the competent authority, intimating the same to the employment exchange, appellants initially appointed for a period of six months on ad-hoc basis and thereafter on regular basis after by conducting written examination followed by interview – After completion of probationary period of one year, these persons posted in the regular cadre – The High Court loosing sight of these relevant material aspects and confirming the order of termination mainly based on the report of the Lokayukt – Not sustainable, set aside. (Paras 28 and 31)
       (d)Service Law – Appointment – Appointments of the entire batch cannot be terminated merely because few selectees were related to the then Managing Director of the Bank.(Para 28)
       (e)M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 – Sections 7 and 8 – Officers of the apex society or central society under M.P. Cooperative Societies Act are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukt.(Para 29)
       (f)Service Law – Termination – Though the officers of the apex society under M.P. Cooperative Societies Act are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukt, the persons concerned who are lower-grade employees i.e. clerks-cum-typists cannot be terminated without following the service rules applicable to them and without giving opportunity of hearing – In absence of opportunity to the employees, the termination order which was issued at the instance of Commissioner, Cooperative Societies based on the report of Lokayukt cannot be sustained.(Paras 29 to 31)
       (g)Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1976 – Rule 61 – Declaring Rule 61 as ultra vires was not warranted and the issue therefore held to be left open. (Para 31)
       Facts of the case:
       On 24.06.1994, the Managing Director of the M.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., requested the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, M.P., Bhopal for appointment of 60 ad-hoc clerks-cum-typists in the Bank. By letter dated 29.06.1994, conditional sanction was granted for appointment of 40 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis for 6 months mentioning that in the meantime the Bank has to take steps to fill up the vacant posts by issuing advertisement and comply the Rules keeping in view the reservation under the Government Rules. Again, by letter dated 25.10.1994, the Managing Director of the Bank requested for sanctioning the appointment of another 20 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis. By letter dated 11.11.1994, the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar sanctioned the appointment of another 20 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis for 6 months on the condition as mentioned in the earlier letter dated 29.06.1994.
       Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction letters, on 31.01.1995, the Bank appointed 60 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months. After appointment, two employees left the services of the Bank.
       After expiry of six months, as envisaged under Rule 22(a) of the Staff Service Rules, 1976, all the appointed persons were required to appear in the written examination so that they could be appointed for a period of one year as probationers. All of them took the written examination and became successful. Those persons were required by the Bank to appear for an interview on 21.07.1995 before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, after satisfying itself, recommended their names for appointment on regular basis. All the appointed persons were asked by the Bank to furnish service-cum-security Bond for a period of three years with a deposit of Rs.5,000/- as security in the form of FDRs. All the appointees complied with the said condition. While they were discharging their duties, taking into consideration of their performance etc., the appointing authority, under Rule 14(b), confirmed their services on the post of clerks-cum-typists on 30.10.1996. When the matter stood thus, according to the writ petitioners, all of a sudden, without any notice or assigning any reason, the Managing Director of the Bank issued termination order under Rule 61 of the Rules on 27.10.1997. Aggrieved by those orders, the affected persons approached the High Court.
       The Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned order, allowed the writ petition.
       Findings of the Court:
       Lokayukta’s report against the appellants without giving them an opportunity of hearing is not sustainable.
       Result : Appeal by employees allowed. Appeal by the Bank disposed of with observations.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1)Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2)How public appointments to be made, whether Lokayukt constituted under the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 has jurisdiction to go into the appointment of employees of the M.P. State Cooperative Bank and whether 60 clerks-cum-typists appointed by the said Bank were in accordance with the service rules are the questions to be decided in these appeals?

3)The Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd., through its Managing Director challenges the order dated 19.04.2006 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1421 of 2005, by way of Special Leave Petition No. 12236 of 2006 before this Court. Questioning the very same order, some of the writ petitioners, numbering 26, who earlier approached the High Court, filed Special Leave Petition No. 19499 of 2006 before this Court. The other writ petitioners, numbering 27, who also agitated the matter before the High Court questioning certain directions filed another special leave petition No. 3979 of 2007 before this Court. Inasmuch as the issues raised and challenge in all these petitions relate to the very same order of the High Court and are interconnected, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.

4)The brief facts, in nutshell, are as follows :

On 24.06.1994, the Managing Director of the M.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) requested the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, M.P., Bhopal for appointment of 60 ad-hoc clerks-cum-typists in the Bank. By letter dated 29.06.1994, conditional sanction was granted for appointment of 40 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis for 6 months mentioning that in the meantime the Bank has to take steps to fill up the vacant posts by issuing advertisement and comply the Rules keeping in view the reservation under the Government Rules. Again, by letter dated 25.10.1994, the Managing Director of the Bank requested for sanctioning the appointment of another 20 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis. By letter dated 11.11.1994, the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar sanctioned the appointment of another 20 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis for 6 months on the condition as mentioned in the earlier letter dated 29.06.1994.

5)Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction letters, on 31.01.1995, the Bank appointed 60 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months. After appointment, two employees left the services of the Bank.

6)After expiry of six months, as envisaged under Rule 22(a) of the Staff Service Rules, 1976, all the appointed persons (writ petitioners before the High Court) were required to appear in the written examination so that they could be appointed for a period of one year as probationers. All of them took the written examination and became successful. Those persons were required by the Bank to appear for an interview on 21.07.1995 before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, after satisfying itself, recommended their names for appointment on regular basis. All the appointed persons were asked by the Bank to furnish service-cum-security Bond for a period of three years with a deposit of Rs.5,000/- as security in the form of FDRs. All the appointees complied with the said condition. While they are discharging their duties, taking into consideration of their performance etc., the appointing authority, under Rule 14(b), confirmed their services on the post of clerks-cum-typists on 30.10.1996. When the matter stood thus, according to the writ petitioners, all of a sudden, without any notice or assigning any reason, the Managing Director of the Bank issued termination order under Rule 61 of the Rules on 27.10.1997. Aggrieved by those orders, the affected persons approached the High Court. It is also the claim of the affected persons that after getting the order of termination they came to know that the t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1243

Cases Referred (4)