1. (1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.1013/2008 Balotra Co-operative Marketing Society Limited Balotra through its Chief Manager & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.1014/2008 Balotra Co-operative Marketing Society Limited Balotra through its Chief Manager & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 14.11.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. Vijay Bishnoi for the appellants. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. These two special appeals are arising out of the judgment dated 24.07.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.1509/2008 and 1508/2008, whereby, the writ petitions were allowed and the orders of the appellant–Society dated 27.11.2006 and 18.2.2008 were quashed and the appellants were directed to reinstate the petitioners in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. The respondents-petitioners Mukesh 2. Soni and Pawan Kumar were appointed as Pharmacists by Balotra Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Balotra on a consolidated salary of Rs.2500/- on 1/11/2000 and later on their services were extended from time to time. In pursuance to the Circular dated 26.5.2001 and order dated 27.11.2006 issued by the respondent No.2 – the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur. The services of the respondents-petitioners No.3 Mukesh Soni and Pawan Kumar respectively were terminated by the appellants vide order dated 18.2.2008. The learned Single Judge observed that the above Circular and Order are not in conformity with the spirit of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Registrar has no power to issue such directions by interfering with the bye laws framed under Section 8 of the Act and prescribed under Schedule-B appended with the Act of 2001. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to Section 123 of the Act and has questioned the legality of the judgment of the learned Single Judge by arguing that the Registrar is only the Authority to issue circulars and directions to the Co-operative Societies. In 3. support of his contention, he has placed reliance on certain pronouncements, which will be referred later on. Having perused the citations and the law on the subject, we are of the view that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has no power to interfere in the method of recruitment, the conditions of service and the authority competent to fix, revise or regulate the scales of pay and allowances of paid officers and employees of the society and the procedure to be followed in the disposal of disciplinary cases against them as contained in Item No. 2(a) of the subject matter of the bye laws provided for in Schedule-B by virtue of Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 deals with the functions of every co-operative societies, which are to be regulated by the set of bye laws, the subject matter of which is contained in Schedule-B attached with the Act. The Co-operative Societies are the statutory bodies formed under the policy of the Government to encourage and promote the co-operative movements in the State and accordingly they have been entrusted to frame the rules and by laws in accordance thereof. Section 123 of the Act deals only with the framing of rules with regard to items 4. enumerated in Clause (i) to (xxxviii) of sub-section (2) of Section 123 of the Act. The Circular of the Registrar dated 26.5.2001 being Annexure-5 of the writ petition and order dated 27.11.2006 Annexure-6 issued by the Registrar are not in conformity with the Rules of Section 123 of the Act. This section only provides for framing of the rules by the State Government. The Circular and order of the Registrar cannot take the shape of a rule. That apart, issuing directions contrary to the bye laws and that too about a person to be appointed on the particular post of Pharmacist or otherwise should only be from Medical Relief Society or NGO are discriminatory in nature is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, especially in a case when the respondents-petitioners have been appointed in the year 2000 i.e. earlier to the issuance of the Circular and order referred above. Cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar Jain Vs. The State, reported in AIR (38) 1951 SC 201 stands on all together different footing, which deals with the power to regulate or prohibit by issuing particular production under the essential supplies 5. (Temporary Powers Act, 1946). In General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Vs. Satrughan Nishad and Others, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 639, the question was as to whether the Co-operative Sugar Mill is instrumentality or agency of Government. It was held that the real status of the body with respect to the control of the Government has to be looked and the co-operative mill was not held to be authority under Article 12 of the Constitution. In the present case, the appellant – Society is a Co- operative constituted under the Act and is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal as held by the learned Single Judge by virtue of Section 7 of the Act and is governed by the bye laws attached with Schedule-B of the Act. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, both these appeals are dismissed summarily. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. (A.M. KAPADIA), J. ms rathore