✦ Supreme Court of India · 12 Jan 1971

MANAGING DIRECTOR CHHATTISGARH STATE v. ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT & Ors.

Case at a glance

Judgment

#11. In the instant case, it was not disputed that the first respondent is a Central Society falling within the ambit of Section 49-E(2) of the 1960 Act. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 54(3) of the 1960 Act, the State Government issued a notification dated 12 January 1971 specifying that Central Cooperative Banks were obligated to employ officers, according to their availability, only from the cadres created by the State Cooperative Bank. A similar notification was issued on 26 June 1971 in terms of which, Central Cooperative Banks were permitted to maintain cadres of officers and, it was stipulated that Village Cooperative Societies including Large Sized Agricultural Credit Societies would have to employ officers drawn only from the cadres maintained by the Central Cooperative Bank. Similarly, by another notification dated 26 June 1971, Central Cooperative Banks were directed to maintain cadres of officers for the appointment of managers in rural cooperative societies including Large Sized Agricultural Credit Societies. The seventh respondent is not an officer from the cadre maintained by the appellant. Consequently, the action of the first respondent in seeking to appoint the seventh respondent as the CEO is not sustainable in law. The appointment of the sixth respondent as CEO was ratified by the Registrar of Societies and accepted by the BoD of the first respondent. [Paras 48, 49][342-G-H; 343-A-C]

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Amendment Act, 2016; Chhatisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 54; Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2016.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Supreme Court of India, on 12 Jan 1971. The bench was DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 1961 of 2020). ← Search more judgments