IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Hemant Gupta, CJ, Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
District Cooperative Central Bank Employees and Officers Federation, Chhindwara – Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9716 of 2016
Decided On : 23-02-2018
The challenge in the present petition is to an order amending the Madhya Pradesh District Cooperative Central Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Service Rules. The specific challenge is to Rule 6.2.4 of the Rules pertaining to reservation for filling of 1634 posts of Clerk/Computer Operator in 37 Districts of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners argued that the amendment carried out by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was discriminatory. The court examined the nature of the amendment and held that it was a case of legislation by incorporation. The court also found that the advertisement issued to fill up all 1634 posts with reservation applied to all the posts in all the Co-operative societies was not legally sustainable. The court quashed the advertisement and directed the District Co-operative Society or Societies to publish a fresh advertisement giving effect to the policy of reservation in each of the District Co-operative Society. The court also held that there cannot be any direction to regularize the services of the daily rated employees when the steps are being taken by the employer to fill the posts on a substantive basis.
Hemant Gupta, CJ.
This order shall also decide bunch of writ petitions raising similar questions of law and fact. The detailed reasons are recorded in the present petition but this order would decide all other writ petitions as well.
2. The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 6th April, 2016 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madhya Pradesh amending the Madhya Pradesh District Cooperative Central Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Service Rules (for short “the Rules”). Such Rules were initially framed on 03.01.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 55(1) of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Adhiniyam, 1960 (for short “the Act”).
3. The specific challenge in the writ petition is to Rule 6.2.4 of the Rules pertaining to reservation for filling of 1634 posts of Clerk/Computer Operator in 37 Districts of Madhya Pradesh advertised by M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal. Rule 6.2.4 of the Rules, which is in Hindi, on being translated into English read as under:-
Rule
Provision before Amendment
Amended Provision
Reason for Amendment/Remark
6.2.4
The vacant posts meant for direct recruitment can be filled on acquiring the eligibility criteria as per Rules 6.3 and 6.2.1 of the Service Rules and in case of applicability of Reservation Rules to the Bank, the Reservation Rules shall be followed.
The vacant posts meant for direct recruitment can be filled on acquiring the eligibility criteria as per Rules 6.3 and 6.2.1 of the Service Rules and the Reservation Rules to the Bank shall be as per M.P. Reservation Act, 1994. The reservation for Female/Handicapped/Ex-servicemen shall be according to the rules of Government of M.P.
Partly amended
4. At this stage, the provisions of Section 55 of the Act need to be extracted to appreciate the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties. The relevant provisions are as under:-
“55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies. - (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf.
Provided that in the case of co-operative credit structure, the Registrar may frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of the guidelines specified by the National Bank.
(2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees:
Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned:
Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded.
Provided also that the Registrar or the officer referred to above may admit dispute after the expiry of thirty days, if the applicant satisfy the Registrar or officer referred to above that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within the stipulated time.”
5. The challenge of the petitioners on such clause is based upon the Supreme Court judgment reported as 2007 (12) SCC 529 (Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs. State of M.P. and others) wherein the amendment carried out by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 6th March, 1997 in Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh
C.N. Paramasivam and another vs. Sunrise Plaza Through Partner and others
Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and others
Edward Mills Co. v. State of Ajmer
Even in Bolani Ores Ltd. vs. State of Orissa
Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra
Girnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Land Acquisition Officer v. H. Narayanaiah
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India
Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao
Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan
Ram Kirpal Bhagat v. State of Bihar
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others
Sevaram Totaram Pargir vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior and another
State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramcharan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.