© Divisinn Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIomé) No. 2Y5? OF 2011 a IN THE MATTER OF V ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; AND IN THE MATTER OF CHHATTISGARH COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960; AND THE CHHATTISGARH KE JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK KARAMCHARI SEWA (NIYOJAN, NIBANDHAN TATHA UNKI KARYA ESTITHI) NIYAM, 1982; AND THE CHHATTISGARH LOK SEVA (ANUSUCHIT JATIYON, ANUSUCHIT JAN JATIYON AUR ANYA PICHHADE VARGON KE LIYE ARAKSHAN) ADHINIYAM, 1994 (No.21 OF 1994; AND BETWEEN: PETITIONER‘S): 1.Ji1a Sahakari Kendriya Bank Employee Sangh, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Reg, No. 4606 Through Its President Shri Shashank Shakher Dubey, Aged About— 47 Years, S/o- Shri Shanker Prasad Dubey. C2D VERSUS /, RESPONDENT(S): 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Cooperative Societies, D.K.S. Bhawan, /_ Bihari Lal Shastri, S/o— Shri Mathura Prasad, Aged About-59 Years, Working as Supervisor in Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur (C.G.) Raipur (C.G.) 3. Ehe Chairman, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4/.The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maxyadit, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS/ ORDER] DIRECTIONS. , Raipur(C.G.) / 2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vi'vekanand Complex, Pension Bada, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2133 of 2011 (2K WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF‘ INDIA DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8L Hon’ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Vinay Randey, Advocate for the petitioner. ( Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. l Shri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3. O R D E R Passed on this 4th day of August, 2011 ) ( Per I. M. Quddusi, J1 By this petition, flied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to declare Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Karamchari Sewa In t (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Esthithi) Niyam, 1982 as unconstitutional and illegal. Further, to restrain the respondents from applying the Rule 7 in the matter of appointment and promotion in the respondent Banki We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers available on record. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be beneficial to quote the relevant rule, which reads as under : “a.u./W$WWWWWW(W.W aarWamiW)Wmga2 7.Wm,ww,wmania§mammw WErWWW—Wawwawwmew l \ . . \ Petitioners Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Employee Sangh 8a another Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh 8; others Q6 WW,WHH@,$¢HWW¥$W®TW W$Wu€r$mwégWWWWmf§mq€fm m1%m%,%m%éa%wma%wam§?w W15fWWWEWEma'1’L” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, referring to the Order dated 5.9.2009 (med as Annexure P/2 in the instant writ petition) passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in W. P. No. 10663/2008 (s) submits that similar rule was set aside by a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 1415/ 1997 by order dated 11.3.2003 and on challenge by the employer before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2661/2004, the order dated 11.3.2003 was upheld, dismissing the appeal. We have perused the afore-stated order dated 5.9.2009 wherein the same Rule 7 was under challenge. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the above submissions made by learned counsel fOr the petitioners. In the Civil Appeal 2661/2004 Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs. State of M.P. 85 Ors (2007) 12 SCC 529, wherein the submission of the appellant/employer was that the power of the Registrar under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is not regulated by the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, therefore, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 55 (l) of the Act of 1960 has full power to give direction for reservation under the Act in order to implement the Constitutional provisions under Article 16(4)(a) of the Constitution of India and further, that the writ was not maintainable because Co—operative Society is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissed the appeal, holding as under: “Therefore, reading of objective of the Act of 1994 along with the definition of establishment it transpires that the Registrar under Section 55 of the Act of 1960 can lay down service condition for Co—operative Society in which the State has 51 percent of share capital. In case any Co—operative Society in which the State does k" m not have 51 percent of share capital, then that Co—operative Society will not come within the definition of establishment under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1994 and the Registrar of Co—operative Societies shall have no power to frame mle for reservation. It is true that under Section 55 of the Act of 1960 the Registrar can give direction for reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes while exercising the mandate under Article 16(4—A) of the Constitution but at the same time he cannot ignore the State legislation i.e. the Act of 1994. In fact, the Act of 1994 was also promulgated for achieving the object under Article 16(4—A) of the Constitution. Once the State Legislature has framed an Act which is subsequent legislation in point of time i.e. the Madhya Pradesh Co—operative Societies Act, 1960 (Act 17 of 1961) came in 1960 whereas the present Act has come in 1994. It is presumed that Legislature was aware of the power of the Registrar of the Co—operative Societies under Section 55 of the Act of 1960 to frame condition of service of employees of Co-operative Societies despite that the Legislature has promulgated the Act of 1994 and laid down ceiling that the reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes should be made in the establishment where Government has more than 51% share holding. Thus, on reading of both these two enactments it is more than clear that the Registrar of Co—operative Societies under Section 55 of the Act of 1960 has power to frame rules but at the same time he cannot ignore the impact of the Act of 1994. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies can lay down the reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes as general condition of service only in Covoperative societies in which the State has more than 51 percent paid up share capital and not for any other co—operative societies. But the notification dated 6.3.1997 is of general in nature and does not make any distinction with Co-operative societies which do not have 51 per cent paid up share capital of State. Therefore, to this extent the rule framed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh by notification dated 6.3.1997 cannot be upheld and \ V0»39 thé same is struck down. But by this it does not mean that the Registrar of Co—operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh is not denuded of his power to frame rules but he will have to keep in View the impact of the Act of 1994.” Thakur 8. In View of the foregoing, the petition is allowed, Rule 7 of the Rules, 1982 is struck down and it is held that the same is not applicable in the matter of appointment and promotion in the respondent/Bank. No order as to costs. r/Ml’ ‘ M‘ Wwwr _ iV WM, : oi i Sdl- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi G. Minhajuddiu Judge Judge