The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.511 of 2024 Pradeep Kumar Pradhan and others …. Appellants Mr. S.D. Tripathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha represented through its Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, Odisha and others …. Respondents Mr. Bimbisar Dash, A.G.A. for the State Mr. Baijayanti Mohanty, Advocate for Respondent No.5 CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 30.11.2024 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Aggrieved by an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 01.03.2024 in W.P.(C) No.12356 of 2018, the appellants have preferred the present intra-court appeal. The appellants were petitioners before the learned Single Judge. 3. It would be beneficial to take note of the basic facts to address the challenge made by the appellants to the impugned order. The appellants were working as non-cadre Secretaries in different Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies (PACS). The Aska Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Aska is a Central Cooperative Bank and is governed by the provisions of Orissa Co-operative Societies (OCS) Act, 1962. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 33A (2) of the OCS Act, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha has Page 1 of 9 framed Human Resource Policy for the Central Cooperative Banks of Odisha incorporating the Central Co-operative Bank Staff Service Rules, 2011 (in short “Rules of 2011”). Rule 5 of the Rules of 2011 lays down the category of posts in Central Cooperative Banks, namely, Officers, Clerical Staff and Support Staff. The post of Banking Assistants falls in the category of Clerical Staff. Rule 7(c) of the Rules of 2011 lays down the proportion of direct recruits and promotees for the category of Banking Assistants. Seventy percent (70%) of posts, according to the said provision is to be filled up by direct recruitment and ten percent (10%) each is reserved for; (i) Grade-VI(A) employees, (ii) Sub Staff of the Bank and (iii) employees of the affiliated PACS, provided they meet the benchmark criteria. 4. In a meeting of the Managing Committee of Aska Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. held on 18.01.2018, 9 Non-Cadre Secretaries, 12 in-charge Secretaries and one Sub-Staff including these appellants were selected to work as Banking Assistants of the Bank after submission of an affidavit that they would be reverted back to their previous posts in the event any objection from any quarter arose against such promotion/selection, after approval of the revised staff strength. For clarity, relevant part of the said resolution is being quoted hereinbelow: “9 Non-Cadre Secretaries, 12 in-charge Secretaries and one Sub-Staff are selected to work under Banking Assistant of the Bank after they have to submit an undertaking through Court affidavit that they should be reversed to their previous post if in the event of any objection from any quarter arises against such promotion/selection after approval of revised staff strength.” Page 2 of 9 5. Several objections were raised against the promotion of the appellants on the ground that the same were illegal and unauthorized. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha caused an inquiry into the allegations of illegal promotions and based on the outcome of the enquiries, directed respondents Nos.4 and 5 to cancel the resolution dated 18.01.2018. The Committee of Management of the Bank, thereafter, vide resolution dated 05.07.2018 decided to recall the earlier decision of the Committee. Accordingly, opposite party No.5
Decision
in the writ petition cancelled the promotion orders issued in favour of the appellants to the post of Banking Assistant. This is the background in which the appellants approached this Court seeking quashing of the said resolution dated 05.07.2018 of the Management Committee (respondent No.4) and the consequential orders issued on 09.07.2018. 6. It is worthwhile mentioning that a Dispute Case No.138 of 2018 was registered before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha on an application filed under Section 68 read with Section 33-A of the OCS Act challenging the said resolution dated 18.01.2018. Apparently, the said Dispute Case became infructuous once the decision granting promotion to the appellants were recalled. 7. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition on behalf of opposite party No.6 therein, wherein a stand was taken, inter alia, that the Bank could consider the promotion of employees of PACS only in accordance with the Rules of 2011 and not otherwise. The Bank could not have given promotion to the appellants in the rank of Banking Assistant, merely on consideration of appraisal reports of the concerned Bank Managers, without observing due procedure and Page 3 of 9 giving opportunity to all eligible PACS employees (Non-Cadre Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Accountants, Cashier, etc). It was stated that there were 191 PACS having large number of Non-Cadre Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Accountants, Cashier in the area of operation of the Bank. The appellants were granted promotion without following the procedure inasmuch as applications were not invited; seniority list of all PACS employees were not considered and the decision of the Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies regarding requirement of posts was not available. It was stated that excluding all categories of employees of PACS, the Committee of Management considered cases of in-charge Secretaries of only some of the PACS for grant of promotion and made a resolution dated 18.01.2018, whereafter opposite party No.5 in the writ petition illegally issued the orders of promotion. The Bank did not record the opinion of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the District Agriculture Officer, Aska in the Management Committee Meeting dated 18.01.2018 and in connivance with opposite party No.4 recorded decision to promote the appellants and some other PACS employees in the Minute Book of the Bank, and issued the promotion orders. It was further stated that in the said meeting of the Committee of the Management, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies (respondent No.3) and the District Agriculture Officer were present on 18.01.2018. Opposite party No.3 as well as the District Agriculture Officer had given their opinion to follow the gradation list, benchmark criteria and other guidelines of the Rules of 2011 prior to the proceeding for granting promotion to PACS employees. The resolution of the meeting dated 18.01.2018 were not recorded in Page 4 of 9 the Minute Book at the end of the meeting and signatures of the members attending the meeting were not taken at the end of the proceedings. Further, the proceeding of the meeting dated 18.01.2018 was not physically communicated to opposite party No.3 and the District Agriculture Officer, till an inquiry was held on 14.03.2018. Opposite party No.3, had not attended meeting of the Committee on 06.02.2018. After receipt of complaint from PACS Employees Sangha, Aska, Opposite party no.3 and the District Agriculture Officer had written a letter to opposite party No.5 on 28.02.2018 expressing their ignorance about the promotion of PACS employees in the resolution dated 18.01.2018. It was accordingly the stand on behalf of respondent No.6 in the counter affidavit that opposite party No.4 had not recorded the opinion of opposite party No.3 and the District Agriculture Officer, Aska in the meeting held on 18.01.2018 in connivance with others and accorded promotion to the appellants and other PACS employee illegally. Several other facts were asserted in the counter affidavit disclosing irregularities in the proceeding of the meeting dated 18.01.2018, wherein decision was purportedly taken to grant the appellants’ promotion. 8. A rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellants to the counter affidavit. In the said rejoinder, there was no specific denial of the facts asserted in the counter affidavit as regards the irregularities committed leading to recording of the proceedings of the meeting dated 18.01.2018. It was, however, asserted that opposite party No.3 was present in the meeting and had not raised any objection. There was no denial in the rejoinder affidavit as regards non-compliance of the provisions under Rules of 2011, for grant of promotion as asserted in the counter affidavit. Page 5 of 9 9. After having taken into account the facts asserted in the respective pleadings, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 directing the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 to consider the case of the appellants for appointment to the posts of Banking Assistant keeping in view the amended Rules of 2011 as well as the eligibility of the appellants and the recommendation of the Board of Management dated 18.01.2018. 10. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that a report dated 29.06.2018 of respondent No.2 is the sole basis for passing the order dated 09.07.2018. He has submitted that the decision ought to have been taken in Dispute Case No.138 of 2018 in accordance with the provision under Rules 77 and 78 of Odisha Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965. He has argued that unilateral action of the respondents, based solely on an enquiry report dated 29.06.2018, is wholly arbitrary and illegal, which aspect has not been duly considered by the learned Single Judge. 11. It is worthwhile mentioning that it is evident from the present memo of appeal that complying with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants made an application on 11.03.2024 for grant of promotion to Banking Assistant. On 22.03.2024, respondents No.4 and 5 expressed their un-willingness to give effect to the policy decision dated 18.01.2018 and consequential order dated 07.02.2018. The appellants, thereafter, withdrew the said application and filed the present intra-Court appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the order dated 29.06.2018 issued by respondent No.2, Page 6 of 9 subsequent resolution of the Committee of Management dated 05.07.2018, and the order dated 09.07.2018 by which the promotion granted to these appellants were recalled. 12. Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate has defended the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. We have carefully perused the pleadings and other materials on record and we have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It is significant to mention that in the so-called resolution dated 18.01.2018, it was clearly mentioned that the persons who had been granted promotion will have to submit an undertaking through court affidavit that they would be reverted back to their previous posts in the event any objection from any quarter arose against such promotion/selection after approval of revised staff strength. It is also not in dispute that cases of all eligible persons for promotion were not considered. The so-called resolution does not indicate the basis for taking up the cases of these appellants and others for promotion to the rank of Banking Assistant. From the uncontroverted averments made in the counter affidavit, it is patent that the resolution dated 18.01.2018 was recorded incorrectly. It is the specific case of the respondents that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent No.3) and the District Agriculture Officer were opposed to the proposal for grant of promotion without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 2011. 14. In such view of the matter, learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the decision which was impugned in the writ proceeding. The submission on behalf of the appellants that the Page 7 of 9 respondents ought to have waited for the outcome of the Dispute Case No.138 of 2018 before recalling the resolution dated 18.01.2018 is not at all tenable as the said case had become infructuous once the decision granting promotion to the appellants were recalled. 15. We do not find any illegality in the decision annulling the orders issued in favour of these appellants based on so-called minutes of the proceedings dated 18.01.2018, which has been disputed by respondent No.3 and the District Agriculture Officer. It is also not in dispute that the signature of these officers are not available below the so-called proceedings said to have been recorded based on the meeting of the Committee of Management held on 18.01.2018. The entire case of the appellants is based on resolution dated 18.01.2018 of the Committee of Management which has been found to be suffering from patent illegalities. Once a decision was taken to recall the earlier decision dated 18.01.2018, the Dispute Case which was filed against these appellants lost its purpose. 16. We see no reason why the official-respondents should have waited for decision in the Dispute Case once they came to a conclusion that the decision as recorded on 18.01.2018 was null and void. 17. We, accordingly, do not find any merit in the present intra-court appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 18. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is, however, modified to the extent that the concerned respondents should initiate the process of promotion against 10% of the post of Banking Assistant from amongst the employees of PACS in accordance with Page 8 of 9 the Rules and in conformity with the requirements under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) (Savitri Ratho) Judge S.K. Guin/P.A. Sisira Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2025 12:31:19 Page 9 of 9