ANTER SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , four in number, are challenging the validity of the order issued by the Registrar dated 6.3.2002, the advertisement issued by District Co-operative Central Bank, Mandsaur dated 11.10.2002 and the select list declared by respondent No. 2 on 28.2.2003.

(2.) PETITIONERS , who are working as salesmen in the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies Ltd., are aggrieved by the order of the Registrar whereby directions have been issued for appointment of Society Managers, in the District Co-operative Central Bank on contract basis. According to petitioners who are working in the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies, which are affilitated to respondent No. 2, there is a channel of promotion on the post of Society Managers in the District Co-operative Central Bank. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that without following the procedure for promotion, respondent No. 2 has issued advertisement for direct recruitment on the post of Society Managers on contract basis for a period of two years. This according to petitioners is contrary to rules. After show cause notice, respondent No. 2 alone has filed reply wherein it has been pointed out that pursuant to the advertisement only petitioners No. 1 & 2 had applied but they could not successfully sail through the process of recruitment. Shri Sethi submitted that having participated in the recruitment process, petitioners No. 1 & 2 cannot be permitted to take a somersault so as to challenge the process of recuitment. As regards petitioners No. 3 & 4, it has been pointed out that they did not even brother to apply for the post, therefore, they cannot be permitted to question the validity of the recruitment process or the select list. Shri Mitha submitted that petitioners No. 3 & 4 could not apply for the post as they were not having the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Society Managers, which is passing of the Higher Secondary Examination with minimum second division. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further pointed out that if the petitioners did not want to have the appointment on contract basis as Society Managers, then they need not to apply for the post. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also raised a preliminary objection that all petitioners individually have an efficacious alternative remedy of raising the dispute under sections 55 (2) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

(3.) IN view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with directions that if the petitioners so desire, they may raise the dispute within a month before the competent authority under section 55 (2). If the dispute is so raised within a month, the dispute shall be heard and decided by the competent authority without going into the question of limitation. It is expected and hoped that the"competent authority shall hear and decide the dispute expeditionsly and if possible within a period of six months. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.