Back
Pooran Singh Meena Case: Rules Registrar Cannot Interfere in Cooperative Bank Appointments
A Victory for Cooperative
In a significant ruling reinforcing the operational independence of cooperative societies, the has quashed the of two employees of the . Justice Anand Sharma, presiding over a single bench, held that the exceeded his authority by staying a bank resolution that the employees' services. The judgment, delivered on , marks a clear assertion that of the grants short-term cooperative credit structure societies full in staffing and internal administration—a power the Registrar cannot curtail using .
The Dispute at the Heart of the Case
Pooran Singh Meena and Dilip Singh Shekhawat were initially employed on a contractual basis by the . On , the bank's board passed resolution No.11(2) to regularise their services as Class IV employees. The resolution was approved a year later, and formal appointment orders were issued on , followed by posting orders on .
However, the intervened, issuing an order on that stayed the resolution under (1) of the Act. The matter was then referred to the for rescinding the resolution. Complying with this directive, the bank's Managing Director cancelled both the resolution and the appointment orders on , effectively terminating the petitioners' services.
Arguments from Both Sides
The petitioners, represented by advocates and , contended that the Registrar's intervention was a direct assault on the society's statutory . They placed reliance on a Division Bench ruling in Tej Singh vs. Hanumangarh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2013), which had already settled the interplay between Sections 30B and 125.
The respondents, defended by advocate and Assistant Government Counsel , argued that the bank had not followed proper recruitment procedures, rendering the appointments illegal. They maintained that the Registrar's action was a valid exercise of to prevent irregular appointments.
The Court's Legal Analysis: Cannot Be Undermined
Justice Sharma examined the language of Sections 30B and 125 in detail.
explicitly declares that a short-term cooperative credit structure society
"shall have
in all the financial and internal administrative matters including… personal policy, staffing, recruitment, posting and compensation to staff."
The
(1)
adds a crucial rider:
"the Registrar shall not do anything or take action or issue any order or directive which has effect of curtailing any of the freedom or powers given under this Act to any short term co-operative credit structure society."
The court observed that the Division Bench in
Tej Singh
had already interpreted these provisions harmoniously. In that case, the Registrar had terminated a contractual employee of another cooperative bank, and the Division Bench held the action illegal because it
"patently is in exercise of its power traceable to
of the Act"
and
"the intervention of the Registrar… is opposed to the
of the proviso to
."
Applying this , Justice Sharma concluded:
"…the controversy involved in the present is no more and it has already been held by the Division Bench that the Registrar while exercising the powers under of the Act of 2001 cannot make any interference so as to curtail or undermine the of the Society."
The court found the dated and to be arbitrary and contrary to the Division Bench's decision.
The Final Decision and Its Implications
The writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside. The court made the
absolute, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in service and to grant them all consequential benefits. The judgment further clarified that the petitioners' services
"shall not be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of law."
This ruling sends a clear message to registrars and government departments: the statutory of cooperative societies in internal management must be respected. Any attempt to override board resolutions through the under , without a clear nexus to illegality or public interest, will be struck down. The decision reinforces the principle that cooperative societies are not mere appendages of the state but autonomous entities entitled to manage their own affairs.
