1 (1)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1508/2008 (Pawan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (2)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1509/2008 (Mukesh Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 24th July, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Rajesh Choudhary for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Choudhary] Mr. Vijay Bishnoi ] for the respondents. .... These two petitions for writ are preferred to challenge the order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies instructing the Managers of various Marketing Cooperative Societies to remove all Salesmen/Pharmacists who were not employed through non-governmental organisations. A challenge is also given to the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the General Manager, Balotara Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Balotara terminating the petitioners' service in compliance of the order dated 27.11.2006 referred above. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioners were employed as Pharmacists with the respondent Cooperative Society on 1.11.2000 with a consolidated salary of Rs.2500/-. The appointment of 2 the petitioners was for a specific term but that was extended time to time. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies by order impugned dated 27.11.2006 directed to all the Marketing Cooperative Societies to engage Salesmen/Pharmacists only through non-governmental organisations and to terminate those employees working otherwise through the non-governmental organisation. In compliance of the order dated 27.11.2006 the General Manager of the respondent cooperative societies terminated the petitioners from service vide order dated 18.2.2008. It is also relevant to note here that prior to termination from service the petitioners made certain representations to the competent officers of the respondent cooperative society and also to the officers of the Cooperative Department to regularise their services. The petitioners, while giving challenge to the authority of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to issue directions regarding source of employment by the Cooperative Societies, have also pleaded that the directions given by the Registrar are not applicable in their case being employed in the year 2000. In reply to the writ petition the stand of the respondent Cooperative Society is that the termination of the petitioners was made by acting upon the instructions given by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. A reply to the writ petition on behalf the 3 Registrar, Cooperative Societies is also filed but nothing is said regarding authority of the Registrar to issue the directions in question. Heard counsel for the parties. The plea of the petitioners to challenge their termination from service is as follows:- (1) the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is having no authority to instruct the executives of the cooperative societies to employ Salesmen/Pharmacists through non-governmental organisations only; and (2) the directions given by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies are subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners and, therefore, those cannot be made applicable to them. On asking, counsel for the respondent State utterly failed to satisfy the Court regarding authority of the Registrar to issue directions to various cooperative societies for employing Salesmen/Pharmacists through N.G.Os. only. In reply to the writ petition also nothing is said in this regard. 4 The cooperative movement, under statutory supervision is an effort to ensure execution of the constitutional will as reflects under Article 39 of the Constitution of India, in the terms that the State shall in particular direct its policies towards securing that ownership and control of the national resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good, and so also operation of the economic system in the way that it does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. The Government of Rajasthan is also by the force of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) is having a statutory duty to encourage and promote the cooperative movement in the State. Under the Act of 2001 certain supervisory powers are available to the State Government and also to its functionaries. The powers of the Registrar as given under Sections 11, 13, 30, 31, 54, 55, 56, 57 and also in Chapter X of the Act of 2001 and also the powers given to the State Government under Sections 29, 30, 31, 105, and 107 of the Act of 2001 are regulatory. The State Government is having power to frame rules for the purposes referred under Section 123 of the Act of 2001 relating to the cooperative societies. From complete reading of the scheme of the Act of 2001, it is apparent that whatever powers are available to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and also to the State Government are just regulatory and 5 so far as administrative and executive powers of the cooperative societies are concerned, those vest with the cooperative societies only. As per Section 7 of the Act of 2001 a registered cooperative society is a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold property entered into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose of which it was constituted. As per Section 8 of the Act of 2001 functions of every cooperative society shall be regulated by a set of registered bye-laws. The subject matters of the bye- laws are also prescribed under Schedule-B appended to the Act of 2001 and as per the model bye-laws the method of recruitment, the conditions of service and the authority competent to revise or regulate the scales of pay and allowances of the paid officers and the employees of the society in the disposal of disciplinary cases against them is required to be provided under the bye-laws framed by the society itself. It can be safely said that the Government may patronise and supervise cooperative movement but the cooperative societies as per the scheme of the Act of 2001 are not part and partial of the administrative set up of the Government. The independence and self- reliance of the societies is adequately protected by the legislature under the Act of 2001, thus, the 6 Government's interference in day to day regulation, functions and activities of the societies registered under the Act of 2001, is absolutely unwarranted. Suffice it to state that as a result of the totally unauthorised interference of the State Government the people's enthusiasm for the cooperative movement is not growing and the movement is not getting the shape of the people's movement. In the instant cases appointments of the petitioners were made by the cooperative society by adopting a fair method. The petitioners were in employment of the society from last about seven years and they have been discontinued from service under the instructions given by the Registrar Cooperative Societies to employ Salesmen/Pharmacists through non- governmental organisations. The Registrar can exercise the powers entrusted by the statute but not otherwise. There is no power under the Act of 2001 available to the Registrar to provide the source and mode of recruitment of the employees of cooperative societies just by the administrative instructions. The order dated 27.11.2006, for the reasons given above is not supported by any authority of law and, therefore, the same is illegal. The action taken by the respondent Cooperative Society in pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2006 is also, therefore, bad. Accordingly, these petitions for writ are allowed. The orders dated 27.11.2006 and 18.2.2008 are hereby quashed. The 7 respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.