Others v. State of U.P. and Others reported at

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Akshara Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Shri Mahesh Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2025 whereby one Saurabh Raghav has been discontinued as the acting Secretary of the Cooperative Society and regularly appointed cadre Secretary has been appointed as Secretary of the B-PACS Cooperative Society, Kalakhuri. Saurabh Raghav was appointed as Secretary of the society as an interim measure by order dated 16.06.2023. The said Saurabh Raghav is substantively appointed as an accountant. The appointment of the said Saurabh Raghav as Secretary was made on temporary basis. The appointment of the Secretary in a Cooperative Society and the rights of an officiating Secretary had fallen for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and Others reported at 2017(2) ADJ 561(DB). The Division Bench held as under: “14. We may note that a challenge on similar lines was addressed before a Division Bench of the Court in Committee of Management, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 2013 (3) ADJ 301. Negativing the submissions advanced by the petitioners there, the Division Bench observed as under: "30. When Section 29A of subsection (viii) of the Act which gives power to the Committee of Management to make such appointment expressly subject to the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws, the clear intention of the Act is that the other provisions of the Act is not to be disregarded rather they had to be given effect to despite the provisions of Section 29A of the Act. The clear meaning is that Section 122 of the Act which empowers the State Government to create the authority to control the administration of the society for the purposes of recruitment, disciplinary enquiry and control has to be given effect to and the Regulation which has been framed under Section 122 of the Act is still operative and is to be given effect to.

31. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after amendment of Section 29A of the Act, the Service Board has no authority to make recruitment, cannot be accepted." Moreover, the petitioner was not appointed as a regular Secretary of the Society. The right of a person who is not appointed to the post of Secretary to carry on the duties of the Secretary also arose for consideration before a learned Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others reported at 1997 SCC OnLine All

794. In Surendra Singh(supra) the petitioner was officiating as a Secretary of the cooperative society. He was reverted back to his post of Assistant Secretary which was challenged before this Court. After examining the statutory rules for appointment of Secretary, this Court in the first instance examined the rules relating to appointment of a cadre secretary of Centralized Services under the U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976 and held: “2. ......The Rules regarding the appointment of a cadre Secretary of the Centralised Services under the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 are contained in Part VII of the Rules, under the heading ‘recruitment’. Rule-23 provides that no person shall be appointed on any post, included in the Centralised Service, unless he fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed in these Rules in respect of educational qualifications, age, experience and training.

3. Rule-24 deals with the appointment on any post in the Centralised Service shall be— (i) by absorption in accordance with Rule 21; (ii) by taking on deputation from the cadres of Co-operative Supervisors of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Union and inspectors Group I and II of the Co-operative Department as provided in Rules 4 and 26(2); (iii) by direct recruitment, or (iv) by promotion. 4. Rule-25 deals with direct recruitment, which is reproduced below: “25 Direct recruitment.—(1) All vacancies of posts of category III and twenty percent of vacancies of posts of category I and II shall be filled up by direct recruitment by the Regional Committee. For this purpose the Committee shall ask for names of suitable candidates fulfilling the necessary conditions prescribed for the post from the District Employment Officer of all the districts of the region. The names to be asked for from the District Employment Officers shall be three time the number of vacancies to be filled. The Committee may also invite applications, of the employees of the Co-operative Societies and of the retrenched Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Union fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Rule 28 and otherwise eligible for the post through the District Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies of all the districts of the region, and by advertising the vacancies in at least two leading newspapers of the State. (2) The recruitment shall be made by the regional Committee by holding written test and viva as may prescribed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh. The candidates shall be recruited with due regard to the representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, the dependents of freedom fighters and the ex-servicemen of the Defence forces as per orders issued by Government from time to time with regard to the representation of the classes in Government service: Provided that recruitment in the manner laid down above shall be made by a Selection Committee consisting of the following: (i) Deputy Registrar of the Region—Chairman. (ii) Chief Development Officer/District Development Officer— Member. (iii) A nominee of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh—Member.” Rule-26 provides recruitment by promotion, which is quoted below: 26. Recruitment by promotion.—(1) In accordance with the regulations framed by the Authority with the approval of the Registrar, eighty percent of the posts of Category I and II shall be filled up by the District Committee by promotion of the members of a category immediately below of the category, the posts, of which are to be filled up. The promotion shall be made on the principle of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. (2) The vacancies in the societies of Category I and II may, wherever necessary, be filled up by the District Committee by appointment of Co-operative Supervisors made available by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Union or by appointment of the Co- operative Inspectors Group I and II made available by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh.” 5. Rule-27 deals with the probation, which provides that a person recruited to the centralised service either by direct recruitment or by promotion shall be placed on probation for a period of two years, which period may be extended by the District Committee for a further period of six months.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that the service, which the petitioner belongs, comes within category III, meaning thereby that the recruitment by promotion, which is meant for category I and II, shall not be applicable in the present context. This amply says that the recruitment and appointment on the post of Secretary Category III can be only by direct recruitment or taking on deputation from the cadre of Co-operative Supervisors, U.P. Co- operative Union and Inspectors Group-I and II of the Co-operative Department, as provided in Rule-4 and 26(2).

7. The appointment on category III can also be made by absorption, if the existing employees of the Societies have been taken provisionally on the strength of the Centralised Service, shall be finally absorbed in the said service after their screening arranged in accordance with the instructions issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in this behalf, as provided under Rule-21.

8. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been reverted, is totally misconceived. The nature of the appointment of the petitioner was neither in the nature of ad-hoc appointment, nor officiating or permanent one. He was authorised to carry on certain duties of the Secretary. He was never appointed as Secretary. He could never be appointed as Secretary, because his substantive post is of the Assistant Secretary and he does not come within the field of eligibility, meaning thereby that he does not belong to the centralised cadre and was not recruited as such in accordance with the provisions contained in Part VII of the Rules, quoted above.

9. A person, who is authorised to carry on some additional work, carries no right, no lien and is not entitled for any pecuniary benefits for doing certain extra work.

10. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner carried on the work of Secretary for six years and now the authorities are estopped from demoting him, is untenable. What we could understand from the submission, is that the effort of the Counsel of the petitioner is to pursuade us to follow the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. Both these doctrines are not applicable in the present case, because there cannot be promissory estoppel against law. There cannot be legitimate expectation without an authority of law.

11. The question of giving any reasonable opportunity or show cause in the instant case, does not require a detailed discussion as it has no substance. The petitioner was only authorised to carry on, or to shoulder the responsibilities of the Secretary, having no lien on the post and as a person, belonging to the cadre of the Secretary has been appointed in his place, hence no notice was necessary. If the persons, similarly situated in other Sadhan Sahkari Societies, are still allowed to work as Secretary, it also cannot be a ground for intervention. One wrong does not carry with it a substantive right. Furthermore, the process of recruitment for the post of cadre Secretary is an arduous one. It takes considerable time and when batches are recruited, the appointments are made in batches. We take judicial notice of the fact that in several Sadhan Sahkari Societies cadre secretaries are not available. While sitting at Lucknow Bench, one amongst us (justice S.H.A. Raza) has directed the respondents to complete the process of recruitment of cadre Secretary to avoid influx of such writ petitions before this Court. May be due to shortage of the available cadre, certain persons like Accountants or Assistant Secretaries are allowed to work as Secretary of the Sadhan Sahkari Societies, but it does not give them any right to make a claim to the post of cadre Secretary. In view of the abovesaid discussions, we are not inclined to interfere. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.” The law laid down by this Court in Surendra Singh(supra) shall govern the fate of this case. The petitioner does not have any vested right to continue on the post of Secretary. There is no question of him being reverted to a lower post. In the wake of the said facts and holding of the learned Division Bench, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Vandit VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Akshara Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Shri Mahesh Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2025 whereby one Saurabh Raghav has been discontinued as the acting Secretary of the Cooperative Society and regularly appointed cadre Secretary has been appointed as Secretary of the B-PACS Cooperative Society, Kalakhuri. Saurabh Raghav was appointed as Secretary of the society as an interim measure by order dated 16.06.2023. The said Saurabh Raghav is substantively appointed as an accountant. The appointment of the said Saurabh Raghav as Secretary was made on temporary basis. The appointment of the Secretary in a Cooperative Society and the rights of an officiating Secretary had fallen for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 26 Others v. State of U.P. and Others reported at 2017(2) ADJ 561(DB). The Division Bench held as under: “14. We may note that a challenge on similar lines was addressed before a Division Bench of the Court in Committee of Management, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 2013 (3) ADJ 301. Negativing the submissions advanced by the petitioners there, the Division Bench observed as under: "30. When Section 29A of subsection (viii) of the Act which gives power to the Committee of Management to make such appointment expressly subject to the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws, the clear intention of the Act is that the other provisions of the Act is not to be disregarded rather they had to be given effect to despite the provisions of Section 29A of the Act. The clear meaning is that Section 122 of the Act which empowers the State Government to create the authority to control the administration of the society for the purposes of recruitment, disciplinary enquiry and control has to be given effect to and the Regulation which has been framed under Section 122 of the Act is still operative and is to be given effect to.

31. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after amendment of Section 29A of the Act, the Service Board has no authority to make recruitment, cannot be accepted." Moreover, the petitioner was not appointed as a regular Secretary of the Society. The right of a person who is not appointed to the post of Secretary to carry on the duties of the Secretary also arose for consideration before a learned Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others reported at 1997 SCC OnLine All

794. In Surendra Singh(supra) the petitioner was officiating as a Secretary of the cooperative society. He was reverted back to his post of Assistant Secretary which was challenged before this Court. After examining the statutory rules for appointment of Secretary, this Court in the first instance examined the rules relating to appointment of a cadre secretary of Centralized Services under the U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976 and held: “2. ......The Rules regarding the appointment of a cadre Secretary of the Centralised Services under the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 are contained in Part VII of the Rules, under the heading ‘recruitment’. Rule-23 provides that no person shall be appointed on any post, included in the Centralised Service, unless he fulfils such conditions as may be prescribed in these Rules in respect of educational qualifications, age, experience and training.

3. Rule-24 deals with the appointment on any post in the Centralised Service shall be— (i) by absorption in accordance with Rule 21; (ii) by taking on deputation from the cadres of Co-operative Supervisors of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Union and inspectors Group I and II of the Co-operative Department as provided in Rules 4 and 26(2); (iii) by direct recruitment, or (iv) by promotion. 4. Rule-25 deals with direct recruitment, which is reproduced below: “25 Direct recruitment.—(1) All vacancies of posts of category III and twenty percent of vacancies of posts of category I and II shall be filled up by direct recruitment by the Regional Committee. For this purpose the Committee shall ask for names of suitable candidates fulfilling the necessary conditions prescribed for the post from the District Employment Officer of all the districts of the region. The names to be asked for from the District Employment Officers shall be three time the number of vacancies to be filled. The Committee may also invite applications, of the employees of the Co-operative Societies and of the retrenched Co-operative Supervisors and Kamdars of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Union fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Rule 28 and otherwise eligible for the post through the District Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies of all the districts of the region, and by advertising the vacancies in at least two leading newspapers of the State. (2) The recruitment shall be made by the regional Committee by holding written test and viva as may prescribed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh. The candidates shall be recruited with due regard to the representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, the dependents of freedom fighters and the ex-servicemen of the Defence forces as per orders issued by Government from time to time with regard to the representation of the classes in Government service: Provided that recruitment in the manner laid down above shall be made by a Selection Committee consisting of the following: (i) Deputy Registrar of the Region—Chairman. (ii) Chief Development Officer/District Development Officer— Member. (iii) A nominee of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh—Member.” Rule-26 provides recruitment by promotion, which is quoted below: 26. Recruitment by promotion.—(1) In accordance with the regulations framed by the Authority with the approval of the Registrar, eighty percent of the posts of Category I and II shall be filled up by the District Committee by promotion of the members of a category immediately below of the category, the posts, of which are to be filled up. The promotion shall be made on the principle of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. (2) The vacancies in the societies of Category I and II may, wherever necessary, be filled up by the District Committee by appointment of Co-operative Supervisors made available by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Union or by appointment of the Co- operative Inspectors Group I and II made available by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh.” 5. Rule-27 deals with the probation, which provides that a person recruited to the centralised service either by direct recruitment or by promotion shall be placed on probation for a period of two years, which period may be extended by the District Committee for a further period of six months.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that the service, which the petitioner belongs, comes within category III, meaning thereby that the recruitment by promotion, which is meant for category I and II, shall not be applicable in the present context. This amply says that the recruitment and appointment on the post of Secretary Category III can be only by direct recruitment or taking on deputation from the cadre of Co-operative Supervisors, U.P. Co- operative Union and Inspectors Group-I and II of the Co-operative Department, as provided in Rule-4 and 26(2).

7. The appointment on category III can also be made by absorption, if the existing employees of the Societies have been taken provisionally on the strength of the Centralised Service, shall be finally absorbed in the said service after their screening arranged in accordance with the instructions issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in this behalf, as provided under Rule-21.

8. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been reverted, is totally misconceived. The nature of the appointment of the petitioner was neither in the nature of ad-hoc appointment, nor officiating or permanent one. He was authorised to carry on certain duties of the Secretary. He was never appointed as Secretary. He could never be appointed as Secretary, because his substantive post is of the Assistant Secretary and he does not come within the field of eligibility, meaning thereby that he does not belong to the centralised cadre and was not recruited as such in accordance with the provisions contained in Part VII of the Rules, quoted above.

9. A person, who is authorised to carry on some additional work, carries no right, no lien and is not entitled for any pecuniary benefits for doing certain extra work.

10. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner carried on the work of Secretary for six years and now the authorities are estopped from demoting him, is untenable. What we could understand from the submission, is that the effort of the Counsel of the petitioner is to pursuade us to follow the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. Both these doctrines are not applicable in the present case, because there cannot be promissory estoppel against law. There cannot be legitimate expectation without an authority of law.

11. The question of giving any reasonable opportunity or show cause in the instant case, does not require a detailed discussion as it has no substance. The petitioner was only authorised to carry on, or to shoulder the responsibilities of the Secretary, having no lien on the post and as a person, belonging to the cadre of the Secretary has been appointed in his place, hence no notice was necessary. If the persons, similarly situated in other Sadhan Sahkari Societies, are still allowed to work as Secretary, it also cannot be a ground for intervention. One wrong does not carry with it a substantive right. Furthermore, the process of recruitment for the post of cadre Secretary is an arduous one. It takes considerable time and when batches are recruited, the appointments are made in batches. We take judicial notice of the fact that in several Sadhan Sahkari Societies cadre secretaries are not available. While sitting at Lucknow Bench, one amongst us (justice S.H.A. Raza) has directed the respondents to complete the process of recruitment of cadre Secretary to avoid influx of such writ petitions before this Court. May be due to shortage of the available cadre, certain persons like Accountants or Assistant Secretaries are allowed to work as Secretary of the Sadhan Sahkari Societies, but it does not give them any right to make a claim to the post of cadre Secretary. In view of the abovesaid discussions, we are not inclined to interfere. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.” The law laid down by this Court in Surendra Singh(supra) shall govern the fate of this case. The petitioner does not have any vested right to continue on the post of Secretary. There is no question of him being reverted to a lower post. In the wake of the said facts and holding of the learned Division Bench, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Vandit VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad