IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6776 of 1999 Date of Decision : August 13, 2010. Ranjit Singh ....... Petitioner Versus The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Arjun Partap Atmaram, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other suitable writ, direction or order directing the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Senior Accountant (Manager) in the Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, against a vacancy reserved for ex- serviceman and for all consequential benefits arising therefrom. The petitioner admittedly is an ex-serviceman. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 02.11.1998 (Annexure-P-1), issued by the respondent No. 2/The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cooperative Bank’), applied for the post of Senior Accountant (Manager) under the reserved category of ex-serviceman. His contention is that at the time of his appearance in the written test, it was declared by the Principal Agricultural Cooperative Staff Training Institute, Jalandhar, that the test is being held for shortlisting the candidates for the said posts. While, filling the form of the said test, there was no mention of the ex-serviceman category. C.W.P. No. 6776 of 1999 -2- Although, the petitioner appeared in the test, but he approached this Court at this stage praying for the relief which has been noted above. In response to the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the factum that there was reservation for the post of ex-serviceman and the petitioner was an ex-serviceman, has not been disputed and it is also not disputed that the vacancy for the ex-serviceman category remained unfilled as no appointment under this category for the post advertised was made by them. A preliminary objection has been raised by respondent No. 2/Cooperative Bank that the writ petition would not be maintainable against the Cooperative Bank as it would not be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He contends that the Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited, Chandigarh, is a Cooperative Society, registered under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It has not been established or constituted by or under the Constitution of India or any other law made by the Parliament or the State Legislature. The Cooperative Bank has also not been established by any notification or order made by the appropriate Government, i.e., the State Government. He further contends that the Cooperative Bank being a Cooperative Society is not owned or controlled by the State Government nor has it been financed by the State Government and no grant-in-aid or non refundable finances have been given or forwarded to it by the State Government. The share money as on 02.07.2010 in the respondent No. 2/Cooperative Bank of the State Government is 0.36%, whereas in the year 1999-2000, i.e., the relevant period as far as the present writ petition is concerned, the share money of the State Government in the Cooperative Bank was 0.78%. He contends that the Managing Director of the Cooperative Bank is the Additional Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Punjab. He further contends that the Chairman of the Cooperative Societies C.W.P. No. 6776 of 1999 -3- is elected one. The Government does not have any deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the Cooperative Bank and, thus, no writ would lie against the respondent No. 2/Cooperative Bank. Counsel for respondent No. 2/Cooperative Bank relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. Versus Satrughan Nishad and others, JT 2003 (8) SC 235, wherein it was held that even if the Government is holding 50% of the share money and it nominates three directors to the Board and also appoints a person to be the Managing Director then also the writ petition would not be maintainable against the Cooperative Societies. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rana Versus Registrar Cooperative Societies and another, JT 2006 (5) SC 186, where in para-10, the tests which are required to be fulfilled for a Society to be amenable to the jurisdiction, has been laid down and referring to those, he contends that the tests are not fulfilled in the present case and accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Further reliance has been made in the case of respondent No. 2 itself in the case of Gurmej Singh Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and others (C.W.P. NO. 16478 of 1999 decided on 19.07.2007), wherein this Court relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the writ is not maintainable against respondent No. 2/Cooperative Bank. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited Versus Chandra Bhan Dubey, 1999 (1) SCT 593, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the writ against U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited would be C.W.P. No. 6776 of 1999 -4- maintainable on the ground that the State Government controlled the said Cooperative Bank and the service conditions of the employees of the said Cooperative Bank particularly with regard to the disciplinary proceedings to be taken against them were statutory in nature. Reliance has also been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others, 1996 (3) SCT 217, wherein it has been held by this Court that every public employee is under a constitutional duty to make appointments against the public posts after considering the claims of all the eligible candidates and wherever there is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and appointments are made in deference thereto, the Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He on this basis contends that this Court would exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and entertain the present writ petition and the writ petition against the Cooperative Society would be maintainable. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and submissions made by counsel for the parties and judgments relied by them. I am of the considered view that the present writ petition would not be maintainable against respondent No. 2/The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. as the case of the respondent/Cooperative Bank would be covered by the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of General Manager Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills, Sultanpur, U.P. (supra) and S.S. Rana (supra). In the present case, the share money of the State Government in the respondent/Cooperative Bank at the relevant time was merely 0.78%, whereas at present it is only 0.36%. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the control over the Society is of the State Government. The tests as laid down in C.W.P. No. 6776 of 1999 -5- S.S. Rana' s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has in para-10 held as follows :- “10. It has not been shown before us that the State exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the Society for deep and pervasive control. The State furthermore is not the majority shareholder. The State has the power only to nominate one director. It cannot, thus, be said that the State exercises any functional control over the affairs of the society in the sense that the majority directors are nominated by the State. For arriving at the conclusion that the State has a deep and pervasive control over the Society, several other relevant questions are required to be considered, namely: (1) How the Society was created ?: (2) Whether it enjoys any monopoly character?: (3) Do the functions of the Society partake to statutory functions or public functions?: (4) Can it be characterized as public authority?” None of these tests are fulfilled by the Cooperative Bank. That apart a coordinate Bench of this Court in Gurmej Singh’s case (supra), while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rana (supra), has held that this very Cooperative Bank/respondent would not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited (supra), has been duly considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rana (supra), where in para -16 it has been stated that the State Cooperative Bank was a creation under the statute and further that the terms and conditions of C.W.P. No. 6776 of 1999 -6- the appointment of employees were again statutory in nature. The said position is not present in the present case. All principles as laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), which again has been relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, cannot be disputed with that in case an appointment is made in violation of or contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by a public employer on a public post, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in such matters. However, in the light of the fact that respondent No. 2/Cooperative Bank is not a Government within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ is not maintainable against the respondent/Cooperative Bank, no relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court. Therefore, the present petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner can approach the appropriate/competent authority for redreassal of his grievance under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and Rules, 1963. All pleas and grounds, which have been pleaded in the present writ petition, can be pleaded and asserted before the said Authority under the relevant provisions. If that being so, the petitioner would be at liberty to file such a petition within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. Counsel for respondents states that the petition, if so filed within the time stated above, would be entertained by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. The plea regarding limitation would not be raised by respondent/Cooperative Bank for the reason that the present petition has been C.W.P. No. 6776 of 1999 -7- pending in this Court for 11 years. An endeavour be made by the Competent Authority to consider and decide the petition, if so filed, expeditiously. Any observations made herein shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 13, 2010. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes.