Point of Law: Exercise of power by the Registrar, under bye-laws and regulations framed thereunder by the Society itself, but not having statutory force, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners, employees of respondent No. 1 Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., have approached the Court against order dated 13.4.2015, whereby respondent-Bank has withdrawn all pending recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 10.5.2002, submitted by respondent No. 1-Bank to respondent No. 2-Registrar Co-operative Societies, for his approval.

2. Originally present petition was filed by petitioners as Original Application No. 3655 of 2015 before Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which on abolition of Erstwhile Tribunal was transferred to this Court and has been considered as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assigning it new number i.e. CWPOA No. 5828 of 2019.

3. First and foremost objection raised by respondents in present case is that in view of findings returned by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA Nos. 182 and 183 of 2007, arising out of judgments passed by Single Bench dated 26.9.2007 in CWP Nos. 641 of 2002, titled as Mehar Chand and another Vs. Jogindera Central Cooperative Bank and others and CWP No. 1398 of 2002, titled as Jagat Ram and another Vs. Jogindera Central Cooperative Bank Ltd and others, filed by some employees of respondent No. 2-Bank against proceedings of DPC dated 10.5.2002, whereby it has been held that those Writ Petitions were not maintainable against the Bank, present petition is also liable to be dismissed being not maintainable being filed against decision of respondent No. 1-Bank with respect to same proceedings/recommendations of DPC dated 10.5.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring judgment of this Court in case titled as Kehar Singh and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2021 (1) Shim. LC 143 has contended that present Writ Petition is maintainable against respondent-Bank. Reliance has been placed on following para of this judgment:

“26, In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that mandate of C.K. Malhotra's, S.S. Rana's, Vikram Chauhan's and Sanjeev Kumar's cases is not that High Court has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a Society or Registrar while dealing with the matters pertaining to the Society. Even in the judgments of the Apex Court, referred supra, there is clear mandate that in given facts and circumstances, writ is maintainable not only against the State of its functionaries within meaning of Article 12 of Constitution but even against private person, including natural as well as juristic person and thus a writ petition against a Society may or may not be maintainable, depending upon facts and circumstances of the case, however, undoubtedly a writ petition is maintainable against the orders passed by the Registrar with respect to functioning of the Society, exercising statutory powers under the Act or Rules framed thereunder.”

5. It is undisputed fact that in the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee on 10.5.2002, recommendations were made for promotion of petitioners for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III which were submitted for approval before respondent No. 2, Registrar Co-operative Societies. Employees of the Bank, being petitioners in CWP Nos. 641 of 2002 and 1398 of 2002, had assailed those recommendations seeking direction to the respondent-Bank to consider those petitioners/employees for promotion from Grade-IV to Grade-III as per rules existing on the date of convening the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee, i.e. on 10.5.2002.

6. In those petitions, petitioners herein were arrayed as party-respondents No. 4 to 11. Those Writ Petitions were allowed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.9.2007, directing the respondent-Bank to consider their case for promotion w.e.f. their date of becoming eligible for the same, as prayed in those Writ Petition alongwith consequential benefits including the arrears of salary in case they were found suitable for promotion. Copies of order