Appeal No2168 of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 281979 of the Patna High Court in CWJC No1819 of 1979
RK Khanna and RP Singh for the Appellant
LC Goyal for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY J
The appellant the Ex Treasurer of the Gopalganj Co op
Development  Cane Marketing Union Gopal ganj was said to have defalcated a sum of Rs 9579054 and for recovery thereof proceedings were initiated under section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co operative Societies Act VI of 1935 for short the Act  with interest accrued thereon of Rs 25555 as on December 30 1976
The Registrar referred the matter to the Asstt
Registrar Gopalganj who on en quiry and having given the opportunity to the appellant passed an award in Case No 400 of 1975 on December 30 1976 for the aforesaid sums
On appeal the Deputy Registrar set aside the award on the ground that the appellant was surch arged in Surcharge Case No 18 of 1976
On further revision the first respondent set aside the appellate order and confirmed the award with a further direction to pay interest till date of recovery
The appellant filed CWJC No 1819 of 1979 which was dismissed in limine by the Patna High Court on August 2 1979
Thus this appeal by Special Leave
The learned counsel for the appellant raised two fold contentions
His first contention is that the Registrar has no revisional jurisdiction under section 56 since the award of the Asstt
Registrar is by the Registrar under the Act and the Asstt
Registrar acted as his delegate
In support thereof he placed strong reliance on Din Dayal Singh vs The Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd It is further contended that surcharge proceedings against the appellant were initiated under section 40 in 147 which the appellant was found payable of partial amount as against which the society filed an appeal before the Govern ment which is pending
The award amounts to double jeopardy for the same liability
Therefore it is illegal
We find no substance in either contention
Section 2 i of the Act defines Registrar  which means a person appointed to perform the duties of Registrar of Co operative Societies under this Act
Section 6 in Chapter II provides thus 6
The Registrar 1 The State Government may appoint a person to be registrar of Co operative Societies for the State or any portion of it and may appoint persons to assist such Registrar
2 The State Government may by general or special order published in the Official Ga zette confer a on any person appointed under sub section 1 to assist the Registrar all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act except the powers under Section 26 and b on any Co operative Federation or financ ing bank all or any of the powers of the Registrar under Section 20 sub section 3 of Section 28 and Section 33
3 Where the State Government is of opinion that the Registrar needs the assistance of Additional Registrar for speedy disposal of business it may by order published in the Official Gazette appoint such number of Additional Registrar as it may deem fit
4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of the Act the Registrar may delegate transfer or assign to the Additional Registrar such of his powers and functions and duties as he may consider necessary including the power under sections 26 and 56 and the Additional Registrar shall thereupon have powers of Registrar in matters so delegated transferred or assigned to him
 From a reading of sub sections 1 to 3 of section 6 it is clear that the State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies besides Addition al Registrar and also appoint persons to assist such Regis trar
Under sub section 2 a the persons appointed to 148 assist the Registrar are entitled to exercise all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act except under section 26
Sub section 4 gives power to the Registrar to dele gate transfer or assign to the Addl
Registrar all the powers including the power under sections 26 and 56 and thereupon the Addl
Registrar as a delegate of the Registrar is empow ered to exercise powers so transferred or assigned or dele gated to him
Section 6 thereby makes a clear distinction between the
exercise of the powers of the Registrar by the Addl
Registrars as a delegate of the Registrar and of the Assn
Registrars or Dy
Registrars appointed to assist the Registrar empowered as such in the discharge of their func tions under the Act
Such assistants are entitled by statu tory operation to exercise the powers under the Act con ferred by the State Govt
except to the extent expressly excluded by the statute
Section 48 provides procedure to adjudicate any dispute touching the business of a registered Society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the Society or its Managing Committee against a paid servant of the society arising amongst its members covered by clauses a to e and c covering any officer agent or servant of the society past or present
Such disputes shall be referred to the Registrar
Under sub section 2 thereof the Regis trar may on receipt of such reference a decides the dis pute by himself or b transfer for disposal to any person exercising the powers of the Registrar in this behalf 
Under sub section 3 the Registrar Assistant or Deputy on reference shall dispose of the same in th manner provided and the rules
A right of appeal under s48 6 is provided against the award made under sub section 3
Sub section 9 provides the subject to the orders of the Registrar on appeal or review a decision given in a dispute transferred or referred under clauses b and c shall be final
Sec tion 56 provides power of revision thus Power of revision by Registrar The Registrar may on application or of his own motion revise any order passed by a person exercising the powers of a Registrar or by a liquidator under section 44 A bare reading of these relevant provisions clearly manifests the legislative intention that the Registrar on reference himself may decide the dispute or transfer it for disposal to a person exercising powers of the Registrar in this behalf
If the Registrar himself decides the dispute under section 483 the question of either appeal or revision to him does not arise except a review
This dichotomy is to be maintained when a revisional power is to be exercised by the Registrar
The power of the revision is conferred expressly only either on application or suo moto against any 149 order passed by a person exercising the powers of the Registrar
Obviously it refers to the person appointed to assist him under section 62a of the Act
In Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co op
Society Ltd vs Society Food  Agriculture Govt
of Andhra Pradesh  a similar question had arisen
The Dy
Registrar of Co operative Societies gave notice to the appellant and amended under section 16 5 of the AP Co operative Societies Act the Bye laws of the Society so as to restrict the area of operation within the specified area
On a revision filed against the order under section 77 the Registrar gave certain directions which was assailed being without jurisdiction
When it came before the High Court the High Court allowed the writ petition
On appeal this court held that the power of the Registrar is in accordance with the pre eminent position accorded by the Act to the Registrar under whose supervision any other person appointed under s3 1 may function and act
It is therefore not correct that the Registrar could not exercise powers under section 77 in examining the correctness legality or propriety of the proceedings initiated by the Dy
Registrar under section 165 of the Act
It was further held that the power under s16 is that of the Registrar but the Dy
Registrar is empowered by the Government to exercise the powers but under the general superintendence of the Registrar
Accord ingly it was held that the revision was maintainable
The same ratio applies to the facts on hand
The Registrar under section 6 1 of the Act has his pre eminent supervisory authori ty over the functions and orders of the Registrars appointed under section 62 a to assist him in the discharge of the duties or functions under the Act except over his delegate under sub section 4 of section 6
His supervisory or revisional power is to correct all palpable material errors in the orders passed or the action taken by the subordinate offi cers feeding injustice
The language couched in section 56 advis edly was wide of the mark to reach injustice whenever found in the orders or actions of his subordinate officers
Merely because the Asstt
Registrar on reference exercised the power under sub section
3 of s48 the Registrar is not denuded of his supervisory or revisional powers under section 56 of the Act
Therefore the Addl
Registrar as delegate of the Registrar is clearly within his power to exercise his revi sional power over the appellate order under section 48 6 of the Act
It is accordingly legal and valid
The ratio in Roop Chand vs State of Punjab 1963 Suppl
1 SCR 539 is clearly distinguishable
Therein the State Govt
have expressly delegated their power to the Asstt
Director
Thereby the Subordinate Officer exercised the powers of the State Govt
as their delegate
The Govt
was thereafter devoid of powers to exercise the revisional powers over the subordinate officers
This court in Chintapalli Agency s case supra distinguished Roop 150 Chand s ratio
Din Dayal Singh s case supra no doubt supports the contention of the appellant
Relying upon the language in sub section 9 of section 48 save as expressly provided in this section  the Division Bench construed that the appellate order of the Deputy Registrar passed under section 48 6 was otherwise provided and so was not amena ble to revision under section 56
The learned Judges construed that since the appellate order shall be final
The effect of language under sub sec
9 of section 48 was to exclude the revisional jurisdiction of the Registrar under section 36
In addition the Division Bench also construed that the Regis trar himself referred the dispute to the Asstt
Registrar and any person exercising the power of the Registrar in this behalf is to be in the parameters of his delegate and that therefore the Registrar himself cannot revise his own order under section 56
We find it difficult to approve the ratio of the High Court
At the cost of repetition we point out that section 6 sub section 1 and sub section 2 a make a distinc tion between the Registrar and a person exercising the powers of the Registrar
Sub section 4 further amplifies the exercise of the power of the Registrar by the Additional Registrar as his delegate
That apart it is clear that the Registrar is the final supervisory authority over the subor dinate officers exercising the powers or performing the duties under the Act
The language in section 56 was couched very widely without being hedged with any limitation like the revisional powers under section 115 CPC or the similar language used in sister Acts in some other States like AP The reason appears to be obvious
The order of the Dy
Registrar by language of sub section 6 of section 48 undoubt edly shall be final
We are aware that when the legislature gives finality to an order it is normally not open to revision
But still in must be construed in the light of the scheme of the Act its operation and resultant effect
The language in s56 is not hedged with any limitation of the finality in sub section 6 of section 48
Thus we hold that the revisional power under section 56 is independent of the appellate power under section 486
The letter is amenable to revi sion by the Registrar
The ratio of the Division Bench in Din Dayal s case supra is therefore not good law
The second contention that the award of the Asstt
Registrar amounts to double jeopardy offending his right under article 20 is misconceived and without substance
Un doubtedly section 40 gives power to the Registrar to initiate surcharge proceedings on receipt of audit report under section 33 or an enquiry under section 35 or on inspection under Ss 34 36 or 37 or of the winding up proceedings if it appears to the Registrar that any person who has taken part in the organisation or the management of the society or any past or present officers of the society made any illegal payment under clause a or by reason of his culpable negligence or mis 151 conduct causes loss or deficiency to the funds of the socie ty under clause b or failed to bring into account any sums which ought to have been brought into the account under clause d or misappropriated or fraudulently retained any property of the society or of the financing bank etc
The proceedings under section 18 are in the nature of a civil suit otherwise cognisable by a civil court under section 9 of the CPC
The statute has taken out the jurisdication of the civil court and expressly conferred on the Registrar or a person exercising the powers of the Registrar to decide the dispute touching the business or management of the society between its members past members etc
or their office bearers agent or officers or servants of the society etc
The proceedings under section 40 are not in substitution of section 48 but are independent of and in addition to the normal civil remedy under section 18
The culpable negligence miscon duct misappropriation fraudulent conduct etc
are relevant facts to be established in the proceedings under section 40
But that is not so under section 48
Therefore mere initiation or an order passed under section 40 does not divest the jurisdiction or power of the Registrar under section 48 when it was referred to for a decision of the dispute
Exercise of the jurisdiction to pass an award under section 183 or revision under section 56 does not amount to double jeopardy
We are informed that an appeal before the Government is pending against surcharge order under section 40
We express no opinion thereon
We hold that exercise of the power to pass an award under section 48 does not amount to double jeopardy
The appellate order of the Dy
Registrar is obviously and palpably illegal and rightly corrected
The appeal is accordingly dismissed but since none appeared for the respondents we order no costs
VPR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Article 371D of the Constitution of India which is peculiar to the State of Andhra Pradesh only empowers the President to provide by order for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matters of public employment and educa tion
As provided therein the President of India made the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Orders 1975 by virtue of which the State was divided into six zones and local cadres of posts in respect of the local areas were created
In respect of Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj Engi neering Service the two such zonal posts were Junior Engi neer and Assistant Engineer
Before the Administrative Tribunal some promotions made from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer were questioned and the Tribunal held that promotions should be made on the basis of the Statewide list and directed the State Government to redetermine the position of the petitioners before it in the seniority list
Aggrieved by the Tribunal s order the State Government and the affected officials have approached this Court by way of the present appeals and special leave petitions
On behalf of the State Government it was contended that both the posts of Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer were zonal posts under the Presidential Order and the zonal seniority list had to be followed in the 28 matter of promotions from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer and not the Statewide seniority list of Junior Engineers
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that Article 371D 2 of the Constitution refers only to direct recruitment and the Presidential Order made under the said Article cannot make a departure and cannot be made applica ble for promotions also
It was further contended that it is the Statewide list that should be the basis for promotion
Disposing of these matters this Court HELD 1
Notwithstanding anything contained in the AP Panchayati Raj Engineering Service Rules 1963 the promo tions have to be based on zonal list otherwise the very object sought to be achieved as per Article 371D of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order issued thereunder would be defeated
The word employment  should be interpreted in a broad and general manner
The expression in the matter of public employment  in clause 1 of Arti cle 371D is of wider import
The public employment can be by way of direct recruitment or by promotion
The Presidential Order would apply both for direct recruitment and for promo tion in respect of categories specified in the Third Sched ule
Article 371D 2 does not make any departure from this principle
The words in particular therein only lay empha sis on the aspect of creating local cadres for different parts of the State for the purposeof direct recruitment and treat such parts as local areas
This does not in any manner restrict the scope of Article 371D wherein it is clearly declared that in the matter of public employment the Presi dent is empowered to make an order in the manner stated therein and the public employment cannot but be interpreted to include promotion also
It therefore emerges that Article 371D is in general terms and applies to the public employment as whole and Article 371D2 in particular ap plies to direct recruitment
It is only complementary to clause 1 and particularises the matters which an order made under clause 1 provides for
Any other interpretation would defeat the object underlying these two provisions
42 D H 43 A The General Manager Southern Railway vs Rangachari   relied on
Article 371D is of exceptional nature and the objective is to provide equal opportunities in the backward areas in respect of the specified posts mentioned in the Third Schedule which are included in the local cadres which thus became zonal posts
As mentioned in para 5 of the 29 Presidential Order and Rule 2 A of the AP Panchayati Raj Engineering Service Rules such zones should be treated as separate units for the purpose of promotions also
There fore there is valid nexus to the object that is sought to be achieved and even if there is some anamoly it cannot on that basis be said that such promotions for zonal posts on the basis of the zonal seniority list amounts to discrimina tion
44 D E 22
Rule 2 A makes it abundantly clear that for the purpose of recruitment appointment promotion transfer etc
each zone shall be a separate unit
Para 5 of the Presidential Order is also to the same effect
When once each zone is treated as separate unit for the purpose of promotion also in respect of zonal posts then by virtue of Article 371D and the Presidential Order the promotion from the post of junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engi neer which are both zonal posts should be on the basis of the zonal seniority list inasmuch as the post of Junior Engineer and the next promotion post namely AssistantEngi neer are included in the local cadres and the zonal list in the Third Schedule
With regard to the higher post which included in the local cadre and which are Statewide posts it becomes obvious that the Statewide seniority list of the Assistant Engineer of all zones should be prepared and that should be the basis of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer which is not a zonal post
Therefore the direc tions given by the Tribunal to ensure that no Junior Engi neer is promoted earlier than their seniors in the Statewide seniority list to the post of Executive Engineer should be quashed
43 F H 44 A B section Prakasha Rao and Anr
vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors  relied on
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Ors
vs VVS Krishna murthy and Ors  referred to
All promotions of Junior Engineers redesignated as Assistant Executive Engineers to the next higher post of Assistant Engineers redesignated as Deputy Executive Engi neers have to be made on the basis of the zonal seniority list and not on the basis of the Statewide seniority list of Junior Engineers
Having regard to the historical background and the object underlying Article 371D and the Presidential Order and in particular para 13 of the Presidential Order the promotions if any made should be 30 treated only as provisional
If Rule 2 A is viewed from this angle particularly in the light of paras 5 and 13 of the Presidential Order it becomes clear that the said Rule has to be given retrospective effect so that the promotions to the junior posts can be brought in conformity with Articles 371D and the Presidential Order
The promotions made after the Presidential Order dated 18111975 should be treated as provisional and the Government is permitted to review these promotions on the basis of zonal seniority lists and re adjust the same all the future promotions
from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer should necessarily be made on the basis of the zonal seniority lists
For the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer which is not a zonal post a Statewide seniority list of the Assistant Engineers of all zones should be prepared and such statewide seniority list should form the basis of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer
The State Government is accordingly directed to prepare such lists ie zonal seniority lists of various zones for the purpose of promotions from Junior Engineers to Assistant Engineers within the zones and also the statewide seniority list of the Assistant Engineers of all zones for the purpose of promotions to the post of Executive Engineer
Such of the directions given by the Tribunal in the matters which are contrary to and different from the conclusions now reached shall remain quashed
44 D E 44 D H 45 A B 33
The inter se seniority and the consequent promo tions of Respondent Nos
1 to 5 in Civil Appeal No 393588 as well as the petitioners in Special Leave Petition Civil No 215087 shall be determined subject to the directions now given
45 B C Y N Rangiah and Ors
J Sreenivasa Rao and Ors
 19833 SCC 284 NT Devin Katti and Ors
vs Karnata ka Public Senice Commission and Ors   referred to