SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Kar) 325

Karnataka High Court
Judges : Chandrakantaraj Urs
CHANDRASEKHARAPPA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
W. P. 16484 Of 1980
Decided On : 09/11/1986
Advocates Appeared :
Desai, H.S.Jois, Kadidal Manjappa, P.R.Ramesh, R.U.Goulay, S.L.Simha, T.S.Ramachandra

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the authority of the State Government in recruitment matters under Section 128a of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

Headnote:

Recruitment - Co-operative Societies - Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Section 12(1), Section 128a - The court discussed the legality of the order directing the merger of the pool officers with the KSCLD Bank as a separate wing and the authority of the State Government in recruitment matters under Section 128a of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitions involved a challenge to the order directing the merger of pool officers with the KSCLD Bank as a separate wing. The petitioners contended that the State Government had no power to effect recruitment as it was not the recruitment authority. The KSCLD Bank and the State argued that the pool officers were employees of the bank and had been recruited in accordance with the bank's rules.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order directing the merger of pool officers with the KSCLD Bank as a separate wing did not amount to recruitment by the State Government. It also stated that the matter was not suitable for the court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The main issue was the authority of the State Government in recruitment matters under Section 128a of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the order did not constitute recruitment by the State Government and that the matter was not suitable for the court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to move the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J.

( 1 ) THESE two Petitions are being disposed of by the following common order as they involve the same substantial question of law though the prayers in the two petitions are differently worded.

( 2 ) IN Writ Petition No. 16184 of 1979, the petitioner has prayed that this Court may issue a Writ or Direction or Order in the nature of a declaration declaring that Exhibit 'e', the Government order dated 22-2 1978, is illegal and unlawful. He has also prayed that a Writ of Prohibition may be issued to the Government prohibiting it from taking any action in respect of the petitioner, who is working under the third respondent in the first of the petitions, viz. , The Karnataka State co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. , Bangalore (hereinafter referred 10 as 'the KSCLD bank' ). The other prayers are general prayers for consequential reliefs, if any. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 1452 of 1980 is to quash the Government Order dated 22-2-1978 produced at Exhibit 'g', which is the same as Exhibit 'e' in the other petition, There is also a prayer for a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents, including the KSCLD Bank, from taking any action pursuant to that order. The remaining prayers are consequential.

( 3 ) TO summarise the pleadings, both in respect of the petitioners as well as the respondents, who have filed their statements of objections, the following facts may be stated, which are not in themselves in dispute : as evidenced by Exhibit 'a' in the first of the Petitions, the Government of India, Ministry of food, Agriculture, Community Development and Co-operation, (Department of Co-operation), by its letter dated August 8, 1966, addressed to the Secretaries in-charge of Co-operation in the various State Governments, suggested that the question of constituting pools of key personnel at various levels of co-operative credit institutions, which was under consideration of the Ministry for some time, may be given effect to and, in order to increase the operational efficiency of the said credit institutions, Pool Officers may be created by the State Governments concerned. Pursuant to that suggestion, the KSCLD Bank, in consultation with the State government/respondent-1, amended its bye-laws providing for Administration of the KSCLD bank and the Primary Land Development Banks (hereinafter referred to as 'the PLD Banks') pool Officers Scheme. Pursuant to the amendment of Bye-law No. 37, relating to the Executive Committee, the KSCLD bank was accorded sanction under Section 12 (1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 22-3-1968, from which date it became effective. In the meanwhile, the KSCLD Bank had framed the Rules known as 'the Karnataka State co-operative Lard Development Bank and Primary Land Development Banks Pool Officers rules, 1966' providing for objects of establishing Pool Officers, fund for the pool, utilisation of the fund, management of the fund, powers of the committee, recruitment of staff, strength of the pool, utilisation of services of Pool Officers, maintenance of accounts, audit of accounts of the fund, training, pay and allowances of the Pool Officers, security to be furnished by the Pool officers, travelling allowance, leave contribution fund, retirement etc.

( 4 ) IT would be useful, at this stage, to state that the nature of these Rules has not been ascertained by the parties and there is no material placed before the Court to emphatically bold that these are statutory Rules made by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of its powers under Clause (o) to Section 129 of the Act.

( 5 ) THOUGH Shri P. R. Ramesh, learned High Court Government Pleader, drew my attention to a letter of the Government of India, addressed to the Reserve Bank of India, Wherein the draft rules have been referred to as having been forwarded to the Government of India by the government of Karnataka, to be adopted as the Model Rules by other Sta



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top