ivil Appeal No 1012 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 24986 of the Gujarat High 415 Court in BI PA
No 259 of 1986
B Datta PH Parekh and Ms Shalini Soni for the Appel lants
TU Mehta and MN Shroff for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
The appellants are in the cadre of Talatiscum Mantries Patwaries in the Panchayat Service of the State of Gujarat
In the year 198283 they were sent on deputation to the higher cadre of Circle Inspectors in the State service
The question for consideration is whether in the facts of this case the appellants have a right to be absorbed in the cadre of Circle Inspectors
The appellants were originally appointed as Talatis in the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat
Under the Gujarat Panchayat Act hereinafter called the Act  which came into force with effect from April 1 1963 Panchayat Service was constituted and under the Act all the posts of Talatis along with the incumbents stood transferred to the Panchayat Service
On that date there was a cadre of Circle Inspectors in the State Service which was bifurcated and 50 of the posts continued in the State Service and the remain ing 50 were transferred to the Panchayat Service
The appellants were sent on deputation as Circle Inspectors in the State Cadre
In January 1986 qualified officials became available for promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors in the State cadre and as such the appellants were reverted to their parent cadre of Talatis in the Panchayat service
The appellants challenged the reversion by way of writ petition in the Gujarat High Court primarily on the ground that their options for absorption in the State Service were pending with the State Government which the State was bound to decide in their favour
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was nothing on the record to show that the appellants gave any option to be absorbed in the State cadre
The High Court also found that they being on deputation have no legal right to be absorbed in the State Service
This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the High Court
We have heard learned counsel for the parties
The State by a circular dated February 8 1965 asked the Talatis among others to give their options as to whether they want to remain in the Panchayat Service or to be re allocated to the State Service
Section 206A2 of the Act is as under 416 Any officer or servant who is not reallocated under sub section 1 and continues in the Panchayat Service immediately before the expiry of the aforesaid period of four years shall on such expiry be deemed to be finally allocated to the Panchayat Service
 It is clear from the above quoted provision that a Panchayat servant who is not reallocated within a period of four years from
April 1 1963 would be deemed to be finally allocated to the Panchayat Service
The High Court has held that the appellants have not been able to show that they made any such options before March 31 1967
Even if it is assumed that the appellants gave some sort of option the same having not been accepted before March 31 1967 the appellants stood finally allocated to the Panchayat Service
The appellants being on deputation they could be revert ed to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post
We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and as such we dismiss the appeal
There shall be no order as to costs
TNA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants elected Directors of the Sanjay Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd signed a requisition and sent the same to the Respondent 3 Joint Director of Sugar and Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Maharashtra State request ing him to summon a special meeting of the Committee of the karkhana to consider the proposed motion of no confidence against the Chairman of the Committee Respondent No 1
The requisition was signed by more than 13rd of the total members in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2 of Sec
731D of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960
On receipt of the said requisition Respondent No 3 issued a notice dated 1391989 convening a special meeting of the Committee of karkhana ie Board of Directors on 2591989
The said notice was issued to the elected members only
No notice was sent to nominated members of the financial bodies or co opted members
Respondent No 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court and challenged the action of the Respondent No 3 in not issuing the notice to the co opted members and the member nominees of the Financial Institu tions as according to him those members are entitled to sit and vote at the special meeting when the committee considers the vote of no confidence under Section 73 ID of the Act
The High Court on consideration of the provisions of Section 731D read with Rule 57A and bye law No 29 of the Bye Laws of the Society allowed the writ petition holding that the three members of the second category who have got a limited right to vote at a meeting except at a meeting to elect Chairman or Vice Chairman are entitled to be served with notices of the special meeting and to participate in the said meeting and as the two nominees of the Financial Institutions and the expert co opted members had not been served with the notice of requisition meeting the requisi tion meeting could not be held
The High Court thus directed the Registrar respondent No 3 to issue fresh notices to the elected members as well as to the three Directors of the second 492 category before holding the meeting and accordingly disposed of the writ petition
The appellants thereupon moved the High Court and obtained a certificate of fitness under Article 1341 of the Constitution and have filed this appeal
The main contention of the appellants is that the nomi nees of the Financial Institutions and the co opted members are not entitled to notice
Dismissing the appeal by majority BC Ray and Kuldip Singh JJ this Court HELD Per BC Ray J The right to participate in the special meeting as well as to vote for such meeting is a statutory right and it flows from the provision of the Act Rules and Bye laws of the Society
It has nothing to do with the democracy
501E The words entitled to sit and vote in any meeting of the society  refer to member to sit and vote not in every meeting but in any meeting of the society
The only express bar as provided in Section 27 is that the members that is the Directors representatives of the Financial Institutions as well as the expert Director co opted are not competent to participate only in the election of members of the socie ty
501E F The Directors have been conferred the right to partici pate in any meeting including the special meeting of the Board of Directors or of the Managing Committee of the society
501G The requisition meeting that has been convened cannot be held as the representatives of the Financial Institutions in the Board of Directors as well as the Expert Director co opted under the relevant provisions of Bye law No 29 have not been served with the requisition notices of special meeting convened by the respondent No 3 pursuant to the said requisition notice
502B C Per RM Sahai J dissenting Sub section i of Section 73 D provides the manner in which Chairman or Vice Chairman who holds such Office by virtue of his election may cease to hold it
It also pro vides the method of such removal by two third majority of the total members of the committee 493 who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote in any meeting of the Committee
It is thus clear that the right to remove and elect Chairman and Vice Chairman has been restricted to only limited class of members
504E F Literal construction of expression entitled to sit and vote  if it results in negation of democratic process or is against logic and is fraught with danger of removal of an elected representative by nominees of financial institutions or government then it has to be avoided
504H 505A Voting is sine qua non of election and under clause i of sub rule 7 of Rule 57 A the decision to retain Chair man is arrived at by voting and such right namely right to vote in election meeting being nonexistent in nominees of entitled to sit and vote  used in section 73 ID has to be read as excluding such members from its ambit
505E F Such reading of the provision is necessary not only because it is more logical but also that is the outcome of combined reading of subsection 9 of Section 27 Section 73 ID and Bye law 29
505F Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya and Ors
vs Lachhi Ram and Ors  at 610 referred to