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

1981 Supreme(P&H) 66

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.M.Tandon, J.
Satish Kumar
Versus
Punjab State Co Operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 3495 of 1980,
Decided On : MARCH 11, 1981

A Co-operative Society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, is not an instrumentality or agency of the Government and is, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

WRIT PETITION - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT - BANKING FUNCTION - PUBLIC IMPORTANCE - WRIT JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PUNJAB COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1961.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a clerk in the Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank (Bank), challenged the termination of his services by the Bank on the ground that his appointment was illegal. The Bank contended that the petitioner's appointment was illegal as the Selection Committee did not follow the proper procedure and that the Bank was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Bank was not an instrumentality or agency of the Government and was, therefore, not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Bank was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the Bank was an instrumentality or agency of the Government and, therefore, an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Bank was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the tests laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, to determine whether the Bank was an instrumentality or agency of the Government. The court found that the Bank did not satisfy any of the tests and, therefore, it was not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Bank was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

1. The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited (respondent No. 1) invited applications, wide advertisement (Annexure-P. 1) dated 25th November, 1978, for filling some posts of junior clerks in the State/Central Cooperative Banks in the State of Punjab. The posts of clerks were included in the common cadre when the advertisement (Annexure-P.1) was made. Later on, the Board of Directors of the Punjab state Co-operative Bank in its meeting held on 16th of August, 1979, decided to exclude the posts of clerks in the Central Co-operative Banks from common cadre, The applications received in response to the advertisement. (Annexue-P.1) were consequently sent by the Punjab State Co-operative Bank to the Central Cooperative Banks in various districts after taking the options of the applicants regarding the districts they wished to be considered for appointment. The applications of such applicants who opted for appointment in Ludhiana District were sent to the Central Co-operative Bank, Ludhiana, respondent No. 2, (hereinafter the Bank). The petitioner was one of 788 applicants whose applications were sent to the Bank on 20th November, 1979, by the Punjab State CO-operative Bank (respondent No.1). On 12th January, 1980, the petitioner was issued appointment letter (Annexue-P. 2) appointing him as a clerk in the Bank. This apletter is signed by the Chairman, Managing Director and Manager of the Bank. It was specifically provided therein that the appointment was purely on temporary basis unless the petitioner cleared his probation period of one year successfully. The petitioner joined the Bank as a Clerk. The Establishment Officer of the Bank terminated the services of the petitioner by giving him one month s notice with effect from September 10, 1980, vide letter Annexue-P. 3 of the same date. This letter reads:

"Your appointment having been declared as illegal and void, the Board of Directors of the Bank, in their meeting held on 9-9-1980 have unanimously resolved to terminate your services. Accordingly, therefore, one month s notice of termination of your services, effective from 10-9-1980, is hereby given to you. You will cease to be an employee of this Bank on the afternoon of 9-10-1980. You will also be paid a compensation equivalent to 15 days of your salary before you are relieved."

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that the letter (Annexue-P. 3) terminating his service may be quashed.

2 The writ has been contested by the Bank (respondent No. 1). A preliminary objection has been raised that the writ is liable to be dismissed in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ajmer Singh V/s. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, 1980 Pun LJ 589: (AIR 1981 Punj and Har 107), that a Society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On merits, the case of the Bank is that the Selection Committee consisting of five Directors, Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar, interviewed the candidates on December 22 and 24, 1979. On December 25, 1979, only three out of five Directors were present but, later on, the proceedings were interpolated and the names of other two Directors who were absent were also included and shown to be present. No record of the performance (merit list) of the candidates in the interview was maintained. After the interviews were over, the Selection Committee did not meet to select the candidates. The Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar who were the Government nominees on the Selection Committee were not associated for the finalization of the list of the selected candidates. On January 14, 1980, the Deputy Registrar wrote to the Manager of the Bank not to make appointments as no selection had been made. No appointment had been made till January 14, 1980. On the receipt of the letter, the appointments of clerks, including that of the peti





































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top