The High Court · 2025

Order

Petitioner, a former Sta Assistant at Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank imited who was appointed by direct recruitment with effect fro

25.06.2012, flled this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ o Quo-Warranto against the 5d respondent is functiolring as n Charge Chief Executive Officer of the 4h resPonden! Bank. t is contended that the 5th respondent was not aPPointed as th Chief Executive Officer in accordance with the Service Rules go erning such appointments and lacks requisite qualifications mandated for the post. Additionally, petitioner challenges her transfer to Raikal Branch, rejection of her leave exte sion, suspension and her eventual dismissal from service, a[[e ng that these actions were arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice. 2 Petitioner while servrng at Jagityal Branch, was transferred to Raikal Branch situ ted in a remote location lacking proper commute facilities, under Proceedings dated

20.06.2017, rendering it unfeasible for her to discharge her duties there. She states that she is arried to B. Raj Kumar, a Higher Grade Assistant at Life Insur ce Corporation of India in D \ 2 Jagityal and has two minor daughters, aged 9 and 4 r,ears. Due to these obligations and logistical difficulties, petitioner is stated to have submitted representation on 22.06.2O17 requesting not to give effect to transfer orcler.

Following the representati.on, petitioner appliecl for 15 days leave on 29.06.2017 and prior to completion of the sanctioned period, sought extension of 30 days c.tn 12.O7 .2OlZ. The Bank rejected extension request through proccedings dated I5.O7.2017, limiting the leave to 16 days. peritioner conte nds that this rejection was arbitrary and failed to consider her genurne reasons. Subsequently, the 5rl, respon(lent, through Proceedings dated O4.0g.2017, rejected petitioncr,s request for reconsideration of transfer. Further, by proct:cdings dated 30.O8.2O17, she was placed under suspension for not rcporting to Raikal Branch and thereafte r, on O|.O2.2O 18, the Bank issued Proceedings dismissing her from servu--e. petitioner challenged this dismissal in Writ petition No. 642 1 ot 2O 18, which is pending adjudication. petitioner,s primary contention is that the 5rh respondent was not appointed as the Chief Excr:utivc Officer (CEO) of the 4rh respondent Bank in accordance rvith the She relies on Chapter IV and Secrir;r.r 12 of the Service Rules J Service Rules, which stipulate that be made bY the Management Com years, adhering to "Fit and ProPer" Reserve Bank of India' Petitio ppointment of CEO must ittee for a term of three guidelines issued bY the er ci tes a recruitment notification issued bY the 1st respo dent to the effect that for recruiting CEO, graduate degree CooPeratt CAIIB, DBF, DiPloma in PGDCRS, or equivalent' expenence in a senior or middle m particularly from the third level of sc and a th qualihcations such as e Business Management' inimum of eight Years ageme nt cadre in banking, le onwards is necessary Petitioner suPPorts her obtained under the Right to Info that the 5fi resPondent joined the 3I.O7.1986 and was Promoted to Assistant General Manager' DeP General Manager' She asserts that formallY aPPointed as the CEO functions in an in-charge caPaciry the retirement of the then Chief Prasad, on 24 '06 2Ol4' Petitioner n Bank issued Proceedings on 2 to assume charge, but respondent Iaims with the information alion Act, which indicates Bank as a SuPervisor on Staff Assistant, Manager' ty General Manager, and e 5ft resPondent was never and onlY Performed the trorr. 25.06-2014, following ecutive Officer, Sri Bhanu tes that the President of the 06.2014 directing the Sth o formal aPPointment order 4 was issued. She contrasts this with the appointment of Sri BhanuPrasad,whichwasformalizedbyaBoardresolutionand a presidential order. It is argued that the 5th respondent's continuation as CEO after .Iune 2Ol7 is without legal sanction and that a1l orders issued by him, including those related to her transfer, suspension, and dismissal, are null and void' In the counter filed on behalf of the 1"t respondent - 3. Telangana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited' the Managing Director stated that Writ Petition is not maintainable as the 1st and the 4m respondent Banks are cooperative societies registered under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act' 1964 (for short, the ActJ and do not fall within the de{inition of "State" undcr Article 12 of the Constitution of India- It is argued that the 1"t respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and petitioner, a dismissed employee of the 4h respondent Bank' has no locus to challenge the Sft respondent's appointment- The l.trespondentclarilredthatithadnoroleintheappointmentof the 5h respondent as In-Charge CEO, as the 4ft respondent Bank operates under its own Sewice Regulations' effective from

08.06.2012. The 1"t respondent explained that it had previously deputed Sri V. Bhanu Prasad, Assistant General Manager to 5 serve as CEO of the 4h resPonden Bank for three years, approved uide Resolution No. 13 dated 27.10.2OO8 and communicated on 14.1 1.20O8. After the introduction of the Service Regulations, Regulation No. 1 vested the authority to appoint CEO with the President of t e 4ft respondent Bank. Upon Sri V. Bhanu Prasad's rePatri on, the 4th respondent independently appointed the Sft respo dent as In Charge CEO on 24.06.2014. The 1"t respondent den ed petitioner's claim that appointment required direct recruitme t, citing Regulations 11 and 13, which grant the President scretionary authoritY to appoint the CEO without the 1"t pondent's approval or a Board resolution. The l"t respondent furth submits that its role in Chief Executive Officer appointment commenced only after 2016, following revised guidelines m the Reserve Bank of India and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. A notification daled 2 .06.2016 was issued to appoint Chief Executive Ofhcers in various District Central Cooperative Banks, including the 4ti' spondent, based on " Fit and Proper" criteria. However, this p legal challenges and resumed with ss was stayed due to ,.""@r,"rtion dated o9.o8.2019, through which the sth res ondent was dulY selected i+ 6 i I l and appointed. It is argued that petitioner's reliance on pre- 2Oi6 guidelines is misplaced 4 Respondents 4 and 5, in their counter-aflldavit, reiterate that Writ Petition is not maintainable as the 4th respondent Bank is an autonomous entity under the 1964 Act and does not qualify as "State" under Article 12. They assert that the Bank operates with financial and administrative autonomy, and its employees, including the CEO, are not public servants. The post of CEO is created under the Bank's internal Service Regulations,, not under any statute or constitutional provision, rendering the Writ Petition incompetent. I I is contended that Writ Petition is an indirect attempt to re agitate issues already raised in Writ Petition No. 6421 of 2018, challenging petitioner's dismissal. They argue that this Writ Petition is vitiated by delay and laches, as the Sfr respondent's appointment as In-Charge CEO was made on

24.06.2014 and Writ Petition was hled in 2O2O, six years later, without explanation. The 5ft respondent denied petitioner's allegations regarding his qualifications and apporntment, stating that he was duly appointed as In-Charge CEO through proceedings d.ated. 24.tt6.2014, with his assu-Sion of charge recorded on 25.06.2014. He claims tormeet the eligibitity :f 7 criteria, including educational qual fications and over eight years of banking experience in mid le or senior management roles, as per the amended Service Re lations. The 5ft respondent clari ed that three-year tenure and specific qualihcations cited by petitioner apply only to regular Chief Executive Officer ap intments, not in charge arrangements. He stated that no Bo resolution or extension orders were required for his contin tion as In-Charge Ofhcer, as it was an internal administrative d cls10n 5 In the reply. to the cou r, petitioner stated that the Notihcation to the post of CEO is ued by the 1sl respondent on varrous occaslons through guid es issued by the RBI/ NABARD wherein it was clearlY stipulated that it is a government partnered bank, therefor , the respondent bank has to follow the guidelines issued by the I/NABARD from time to time which is in Section 115-D of th Act. Section 116 clearlY states that the 4ti' respondent requ s prior aPProval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies fo pointment of CEO. The respondent balk is an ilS lig of the State, inasmuch as it is under strict supe on of the State as well as RBI and also NABARD, which, in t, was licensed it to be a basking company and that the Gov rnment of Telangana has t got deep and pervasive control over the respondent bank. It is .i also stated that later, the 1.t respondent issued Notifrcation for hlling up the post of CEO by direct recruitment and the said Notification is also contrary to Section 1 16(c) of the Act. The said Notihcation was issued in the name of Managing Director, as such the contention 1-hat the l"t respondent is no way concerned with the appoin tment of the 5ft respondent is totaliy baseless.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi appearing on behalf of Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel for petitioner made submissions reiterating the averments in the wrid affidavit. He submits that it is settled 1aw tht the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisciton and athorityon the judiciary to control executive action in the matter o[ making appointment toipublic ofhcers agiasnt the relevant statutory provisions. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in I}IOR Modent Cooperdtiue TYdnsPort Societg Ltd. o. Fino,ncial Commissioner & Secretary to Gout. of Haryanat, B.R. Kapur a. Sto'te of TM , Hari Bcrnsh Lal a. Sahodar Praso,d ' lzoozy o scc:os r (2oor) 7 scc 2l r 9 Mahtos to argue that a Writ of Quo Warranto can be issued to restrain an individual from holding public office without valid authority or in contravention of s tutory provisions Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon judgment in U.P. State Cooperatiue Land Deuelopment nk Ltd.. u. Chandra Bhan Dubegl and that of Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Konaseema Co'oPe tirrc Central Bo,'4,k Ltd., Amalapuram a. N. Seetharama Engineering a. A. Surya s and Vrrsaui College ot and contends that if a particular cooperative society can I characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12, it uld also be an 'authority' within the meaning and for the prr se of Article 226 of t}:,e Constitution. In such a situation, the order passed by the Society against its employee in viola n of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of a writ petition. 7 Learned counsel for spondents4and5Srt Srinivas Polavarapu submits that EO post is not a Public office, hence, the judgments reiied on by petitioner are not applicable. He argues that petitione s conflation of regular and ' ntR 20 lo sc i5t5 o atR t999 sc z5l t etR t99o ep tzl oJgfl$) el'l :;s in-charge appointment requirements is erroneous and that Writ Petition lacks merit

8. Upon analyzing the pleadings, this Court finds that petitioner's case rests on two primary grounds: the alleged illegality of the 5th respondent's appointment as In-Charge CEO and the consequential invalidity of the actions taken against her, including her transfer, suspension, and dismissai. Respondents have countered these claims by asserting non- maintainability of Writ Petition, the autonomy of the 4th respondent Bank, validity of the Sth respondent's appointment and the procedural pro'priety of the actions taken against petltloner.

9. The threshold issue to be considered is whether Writ Petition is maintainable against Respondent Banks or not. Respondents rely on the legal position that cooperative societies registered under the 1964 Act do not fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12, as they are autonomous entities with hnalcial and administrative independence. The Supreme Court, time and again, held that cooperative societies are not instrumentalities of the State unless they are under deep and pervasive governmental control, hence, writ jurisdiction under ... 1l Article 226 cannot be invoked agal st entities that are not statutory bodies or public authorttles' ln this regard' it is Pertin nt to have a glance at the dehnition of 'State' under Article 12 ' It states that cooperatlve banks are not considered as State as the Constitution or anY law made State Legislature; they are only man do not have Pervasive control bY body is financially, functionally and by or under the control.of the gover particular to the bodY and is Perva within the Article 12 If the control not be a 'State'. Writ Petitlons agalns generallY not maintainable unles mandatory statutory provlslons Cooperative Society fall within the ey are not established bY the Parliament or the d by elected boards and e government. When the ministrativelY dominated ment and such control is ve, then, it will be 'State' s merelY regulatory, it will the cooPerative banks are there is a violation of d the action of the public domain or breach public dutY As stated bY ResPonde the 4ff respondent Bank, being a co managed indePendentlY, does n functions or receive signihcant Sta self-funded operations and internal from 08.06.2O12. Tlne l"t resPond ts 4 and 5 in their counter, perative societY funded and t exercise governmental control, as evidenced bY its rvice Regulations effective nt, as an aPex cooperatlve l' t2 bank, similarly operates autonomously. Further, Section 1 15D(2) also makes it clear that the Cooperative Credit Society shall have autonomy in all financial and internal administrative matters, subject to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India / NABARD in the areas as specified in Clause (iv) to sub section (2) ie. personnel policy, stafhng, recruitment, posting and compensation to staff. The employment in the Cooperative Banks is not a public posts as dehned under Article 309 ol-r t he Constitution; salary of the employees are not paid from the consolidated fund. In view of the same, respondent bank does not qualify as 'State' rendering Writ Petition not maintainable under Article 226.

10. In the light of the above discussion, the judgments relied on by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand. 1 1 . Even assuming maintainability, petitioner's challenge to the stL respondent's appointment lacks substance. The petitioner relies on Chapter IV and Section L2 of the Service Rules, which mandate a three-year term for the Chief Executive Officer and adherence to the Reserve Bank of India's "Fit and Proper" guidelines. She also cites the recruitment notihcation requiring speciflc qualifications and experience. However, the respondents clarifY that these Chief Executive Ofhcer aP lntments, uirements apply to regular not in-charge arrangements. Regulation No 11 effective from

08.06.2012, respondent Bank with discretrona without requiring a Board resol approval. The Proceedings dated respondent to assume chargo as I the President, consistent with contention that the 5h resPonden is rebutted bY the 5t revealed under the Right to Info of the Service Regulations' the President of the 4ti' authoritY to aPPoint CEO, tion or the 1"t resPondent's

4.06.2014, directing the 5fr -Charge CEO were issued bY this authoritY. Petitioner's lacks requisite qualifications resPon ent's career Progresslon, as tion Act. Having joined as a Supervisor on 31'O7'1986 and ris respondent Possesses over eight n to General Manager, the 5ft s of exPerience in middle tisfying the eligibility critena and senior management roles' under the amended Service Regu ations. Petitioner's reiiance on dia and National Bank for the 2016 Reserve Bank of I nt guidelines is misPlaced, as Agriculture and Rural DeveloPm ereas the 5s resPondent's in- these aPPlied onlY Post-2O16, w charge aPPointment was made appointment of the 5m resPonde dated O9.08.2019, foliowing recruitment Process, further vali

2014. Tine subsequent formal t as CEO through notihcation ftirrg of stay. on 23'06'2016 tes his po&. l-+ :l --..1

12. Petitioner's argument that a Board resolution was mandatory is untenabie, as the respondents clarily that such a requirement applies only to regular appointments, not in-charge arrangements. The appointment of Sri V. Bhanu Prasad, formalized by Resolution No. 13 dated 27 -lO.2OO8, was a distinct case involving deputation from the 1" respondent, whereas the 5h respondent's appointment was an internal decision by the 46 respondent Bank. The absence of a formal appointment order does not vitiate the 5ff respondent's authority, as the Service Regulations permit the President [o make such administrative arrangements. Petitioner's reliance on Supreme Court judgments to argue that the Chief Executive Offrcer post is a public ofhce is misplaced, as the 4th respondent Bank is not a statutory body, and the post is governed by internal regulations, not constitutional or statutory provisions. As is well settled, a writ of quo warrnto can be issued when appointment is contrary to lhe starulory provisions and its purpose is solely to prevent an officer or corporation or persons purporting to act as such from usurping power whrch they do not have. But, in this case, for the reasons stated supra, the appointment of the 5tt' respondent cannot be shown to be contrary to statutory rules. t5

13. Regarding the action against Petitioner, the transfer to Raikal Branch under Pr eedings dated 20.06.2017 was a routine administrattv decision. Petitioner's representation dated 22 -06.2017 iting family and logistical difficulties, was considered but rej dated 04.08.2017. Rejection of h cted through Proceedings r leave extension request through Proceedings dated. 15 7 .2017 was based on administrative exigencies, limitin Petitioner's failure to report to the leave lo 16 daYs. al Branch 1ed to her suspension under Proceedings da 3O.O8.2O17 and eventual dismissal under Proceedings dated O1.O2.2O8. These actions, challenged in Writ Petition No' adjudication and cannot be rea 421 of 2Ol8 are Pending tated in the Present Writ Petition. The petitioner's attempt to link these actions to the Sft respondent's alleged lack of author ty fails, as his aPPointment as In-Charge Chief Executive Office was validly made. l4 The Writ Petition is rther vitiated bY delaY and laches. The 5d resPondent assum d charge as In Charge Chief Executive Officer on 25.06-2014, Petition ln 2O2O, six Years ut petitioner hied the Writ ter, without offering any explanation for the delaY. The SuP eme Court has consistentlY held that de1aY in frling a Writ o Quo-Warranto defeats the t I -==,' l petitioner's claim, as public interest requires stability administrative actions. 1n

15. In the light of the above analysis, this Court finds Respondents 1 and 4 Banks are not,S[ate,under Article 72 and writ Petition is not maintainable under Articlc 226. The 5h respondent's appointment as In_Charge Chief Executirr. Offi... on 24.06.2014 and his subsequent formal appointment on 09 .O8.2O19 were in accordance with the Service Regulations and administrative practices of the 4th respondent Bank.

16. F or the foregoing reasons, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 17 . Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.BHAVANISWAMY / ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR 'te"t,o* oFFtcER 1 To,

1. One CC to SRl. P NARASIMHA Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI ROHIT POGULA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Advocate [OPUC]- 4. Two CCs to GP for Coope'aiion, High Court for the State of Telangana at c KKS GJP Hyderabad. [OUTI Two CD CoPies dF HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.28 o12020 l,/ /,/ . 1/:i r'-), .: e og THE 5 14 11 AUE 2W ( C) :{r-,,.., DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS flA- Lt d \"{'