IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 3553 of 2000 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 18, 2009 SARUP SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. AK Sharma, Senior DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. RK Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 24.3.2000 (Annexure P-5). Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to fill the post of Security Officer. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Security Officer on daily wages vide order dated Civil Writ Petition No. 3553 of 2000 2 8.9.1995 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. The conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Security Watchman (Temporary) on 27.6.1988 at a consolidated salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. Service of respondent No.4 was regularized by the Supervisory Committee of the Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mill Limited, in the meeting held on 5.5.1994. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner has no concern with the post of respondent No.4 as the petitioner was appointed on a higher post than respondent No.4. Vide order dated 11.2.1999 (Annexure P-2), the Administrative Committee of the respondent-Mill, vide Resolution No.1, regularized the services of the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-1850 with basic pay at the minimum of the scale at Rs.1200/- per month, plus usual allowances. On 2.11.1998, respondent No.4 was given additional charge of the post of Security Inspector against a vacant post. The order, however, was subsequently withdrawn by respondents No.2 and 3 vide order dated 6.3.1999. Aggrieved by withdrawal of the order, respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide order dated 12.1.2000 (Annexure P-4) directed respondent No.4 to file an appeal before the competent authority under the service rules with a further direction that the appellate authority should decide the appeal within a period of 60 days. It seems that in the appeal, the petitioner was a party, as is evident from Annexure P-4. Order impugned in this writ petition dated 24.3.2000 i.e. Annexure P-5, has been passed on the service appeal Civil Writ Petition No. 3553 of 2000 3 filed by respondent No.4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that the entry in service could only be under the service rules. The petitioner took entry in service by virtue of order (Annexure P-1), without following the due process. Order (Annexure P-1) itself makes it clear that the petitioner was taken in service as a daily wager in back door entry. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has argued the services of the petitioner being a result of backdoor entry, could not have been regularized under order dated 11.2.1999 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.4 was adversely affected by the order passed in favour of the petitioner in so much as respondent No.4 was working as a Watchman and was to be promoted in the cadre in which the petitioner was appointed and regularized. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that no fault can be found in the impugned order (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has further argued that under impugned order (Annexure P-5), the case of the petitioner was required to be put up before the Administrative Committee of the respondent-Mill after following the procedure provided under Rule 3.2 of the Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mills Service Rules. The petitioner could agitate his case before the said authority and could not have approached this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 points out that as per the pleadings in para-12 of the writ petition, the impugned order (Annexure P-5) has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab. The Civil Writ Petition No. 3553 of 2000 4 Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, had also issued notice but stay had been orally declined. On going through the pleadings, I find that in para-6 of the reply filed by respondent No.4, it has specifically been pleaded that the petitioner was wrongly appointed on a higher post than respondent No.4 although he (the petitioner) does not fulfill the requisite eligibility conditions for the said post. No replication has been filed to controvert this asserted fact. Considering the sequence of facts given out above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has already availed of remedy of appeal, as per his pleaded case in para-12 of the writ petition. Further, the petitioner had the option of going before the Administrative Committee of the respondent-Mill, as has been observed by the Managing Director in the impugned order (Annexure P-5). In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner, however, would be at liberty to pursue his remedies as available to him/availed by him, in accordance with law. May 18, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE