A person appointed as a Prescribed Officer in a co-operative society holds a temporary position and does not acquire a vested right to continue; thus, removal by the competent authority for administrative exigencies is permissible and not necessarily subject to a prior hearing.

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Order on Board

1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.03.2026 passed by respondent No.4/Joint Registrar, Co-operative, whereby the appeal against the order dated 04.12.2025 concerning removal of the petitioner as Prescribed Officer has been dismissed and the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Prescribed Officer has been affirmed, allegedly without affording an opportunity of hearing and in violation of the provisions of the Co-operative Society Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) as well as Co-operative Society Rules, 1962 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1962’). It is further submitted that in absence of elections since 2017–18, the societies are being run through appointed Prescribed Officers, including the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call entire records pertaining to the nomination as well as removal of the prescribed officer from the office of Commissioner Co-operative Society Mahasamund/Respondent no. 5, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the order impugned dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) & 04.12.2025 (Annexure P-2).

10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to direct the respondents authority to not disturb the petitioner till the election of the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Society and he may be permitted to work for the Society.

10.4 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly appointed as Prescribed Officer vide order dated 14.11.2024 pursuant to the recommendation of the committee constituted under Rule 43-B of the Rules, 1962, and had taken charge in accordance with law. The petitioner has been discharging his duties efficiently and diligently, and during his tenure, the concerned society achieved significant milestones, including maintaining zero shortage in paddy procurement for the year 2024–25. There has been no complaint whatsoever against the functioning of the petitioner. Despite this, without assigning any cogent reason and without following the due procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules, a proposal for his removal was abruptly passed on 04.12.2025, and on the very same day, the respondent No. 5 issued the order removing the petitioner from the post of Prescribed Officer.

3 It is further submitted that the petitioner’s appointment was made under the provisions of Section 49(8) of the Act, 1960 read with Rule 43-B (4)(a) of the Rules, 1962, to continue till the elections of the Board of Directors are conducted. Admittedly, no steps have been taken by the authorities to conduct elections since 2017–18, and the societies are being run through appointed Prescribed Officers. In such circumstances, removal of the petitioner without holding elections and without any justifiable cause is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory scheme. Moreover, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

4 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 4, wherein initially an interim protection was granted vide order dated 12.12.2025. However, the learned Joint Registrar, without properly appreciating the grounds raised in the appeal and without applying judicial mind, dismissed the appeal solely relying upon a judgment passed in WPC No. 33/2024, without examining its applicability to the facts of the present case. The appellate authority failed to consider that the said judgment was rendered in a different factual context and does not justify arbitrary removal of the petitioner in the present case.

5 It is als