s ^l IN THE HIGH COIIRT OF 3UMCATURE «TMIASPUR fC.C.l WRTT PETmON.NO. OF2003 l>y7^l°2> . : BETWEEN . •'y)i^ • •• : . • ' ! - iB.K.Gupta s/o Shffi S'A/>|Gupta,iaged about 58 years, Occup. Assistant ^Martaget/Pratiriiylctil GetM|at Manager, Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Qrainih Yikas Bank Maryadit, Anribikapur, Tehsil: Ambikapur, Dist: Sarguja (C.G.) PETmONERS AND |Bo|e:hhattisgarh, |jthegSecratary Department of Co-operative SocieEiesi » :hhaffisgarlt, D.K.S. Buildirig, Raipur (C.G.) '•'> '• . . • • • • '••'•• |JIP3J:3"'jt^- • ^The-RegistFiii^, -^ : -;": . , : ' . ' j Co-operativBiSQcietissChhattisgarh, Labhandi, Raipur, Tehsil and Distrrct: Raipur (C.G.) ,3- The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, IQ-Sahakari Marg, Choutiey Colony, Tehsil andDistrict: Raipyr (C.G.) TheManaging DiF^ctpr, ChhattJsgarl^iRaj^Sahakan! Krishi Aur Gramin Vika& Bank Maryadit, IS^Sallakan Mal'g^ Choubey Colony, Tehsil and Distrid!: Raipur (C^a.) ~ Mr. M,P.Sha(rma, Assistant Mai'iager/Samkatesh Sakll ^isheshgiya;(3rad^-2, Chhattisgai^il^^^lwlpnjKnshjtiAurGrarnijTyikag^ Maryaditf 16-Sahakari'Majig,Ch6i.ibeyCol6hy, Tehsil and District^ Raipur (C.G.) ^6- The Chairman, Zila Sahakarii Krishi Ayr Graptn Vtkas Banlt, Ambjkapur TeHsit?Ambil<apur,J?istri($:ii^gBiga^.G.5 9 lcSw .!i! '''*- t/1 u: :SN .,5^^s" *!>***'~ - ^ i..''YF?r''' ''.'^.. ':'J *" ehW-''i-L --••••< •A'sSi*.--"'7:' RIESPOKOENt!SI m • s M. WRH-P^ITIQNyND^RARTICLE 226/227 OFCONSTrTUnONOFINDIA :a a ULGfcLCOURT OF CHtWTTISSARH AT BILASPlfi SINGLEBEIWH : HCWI'BLE MR.SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI.J. Petjtjoner WRIT PETITION N0,3472 OF 2803 B.K.Gupta versys Respondents : Tha State of ChtetUs^rh and ottiers Mr. Rupe^r Shrivastava, counsel forthe petiUoner. Mr. Safish Gupta, Deputy Govemment Mvocate for ttie State/respondents No.1 and 2. Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate wtth Mr. A.K.YiKlav, counset for respondente No.3 to 6. •'^'^1^*-:^..., 1;'"^^'^ri ORDER (Passed on ltfh Day of January, 2007) The petitioner, while worlong as Genaral Manager in Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank MarysKlit, Ambtkapur, Disfrict Surguja, reBred on superannuation with effect from 31-10-2003. The Addttional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhatlisgarh, Raipur, by a tetter dated 6-10-2003 (Annexure P-5), Just tww days betore retirement of the petitioner, wrote to responctent No.4 - the Managir^ Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank, Raipur, granting approval to appoint the petitionsr for one year after retirement on contract basis. It appeare that, after obtatntng qaproval of the Regisfrar, Co-operath/e Socisties, Chhattisgarh, no appointraent oKler, appointfng ttie petitioner for a period of one year on contrad baste was passed by the competent authority - responderrtNo.4. The peBtioner was permitted to reUreon superannuaUon without there being any order for appointment on contract basis. -^ssws.'sssssKa 2. The petitioner has fited thte peSBon plaiming emptoyment on corrtract basis on the basis of tte lettor dated 6-10-2003 (Ainwaire P-5) of the Registrar, Co-operative SocieUes, OihatUsgarh to respondent No.4. On perusal of the said lattsr, it appeare that approvat for appointing ttie petitioner for one ysar on contrart basis was grantsd, if, in theevent, respondent No.4 deGidedto app<dnt ttie peUttoneron contractbasis. SB;!t'-i!»?N8 3. Be that as it may, the petfdoner does not have avy right to appointment on contract basis wrtien no appointmentorderwas |»ss9d. The approval of the State Govemment for ap(»lntmentdoes not confar any right on the petiUoner to seek appointment on confract b»is. Even otherwise, a person, appointed on contract basis, ctehorsthe statutory rulesand regulattons, and has no righttothe post. 4. AccoKling to leamed councet anaesmng for tha pettttoner, respondent No.4 has vtolated theorder of tt»Re^strar, Co-operative Societies, Chhatti^arh by not passing the onterof appdntment on confract basis in favour of the peUtioner. Inthat went, the peBtionw ought to have avaitod altemativ®remedy availabta under SectionSS of the ChhaUsgarh Co-operatweSocieties Aet, 1960 saekinocomplience of the letter dated 6-10-2003 (Annexure P-S) batorathe R^istrar iteelf. 5. Looking from all ar^les, there is no mertt in 6. The petiUon is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ~ - — Satish K. Sd/- ge &-i3B,o., (::~-:'?-;-.^^i^^^