KARTAR SINGH PATHANIA Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR
LAWS(HPH)-1997-6-20
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on June 04,1997

KARTAR SINGH PATHANIA Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY REGISTRAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AJMER SINGH V. THE HAMIRPUR DISTT. CO -OP. MARKETING AND CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
TIKARAM VS. MUNDIKOTA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)This case is governed by the judgment of this Court in C.K. Malhotra v. H.P. State Co -op. Bank and others, 1993 (2) Shim. LC. 243. The contention of the petitioner is that the writ is directed against the order of Deputy Registrar passed on appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Society terminating his services. It is not in dispute that the appeal is filed under Bye -law 26 of the Service Bye Laws of the Society and the Deputy Registrar was exercising his power under that bye -law. The question has been considered by this Court in C.K. Malhotras case and the following ruling has been given : "Consequently, we have no hesitation in holding that the three Societies, namely, the Himachal Pradesh State Co -operative Bank Ltd. The Kangra Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., and the Himachal Pradesh State Co -operative Marketing and Development Federation Ltd., are not other authorities and, as such, cannot be characterised as State8 when the meaning of Article 12 of .the Constitution and the same are also not authority within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. Order passed by the Societies under their respective service regulations against its employees, as such, or in connection with employment cannot be corrected by way of writ petitions. The petitions also would not be maintainable in order to challenge the action of the Registrar since the same is not an exercise of statutory power conferred upon him under the provisions of the Act or the Rules but an exercise of powers by him under service regulations framed under Bye -laws having no force of law. The writ petition also will not be maintainable since none of the three societies are discharging any public functions."
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. The Hamirpur Distt. Co -op. Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. and others, 1995(10 Shim. LC. 395. in which the decision of the Supreme Court in Tika Ram v. Mundikota Shiskshan Prasarak Mandal and others, (1984) 4 SCC 219, has been followed and applied, will govern this case.
(3.)In Tika Rams case, the appellant was a Head Master of private school, who was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher by an order passed by the management. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who allowed it and remanded the case to the management for fresh decision in compliance with the principles of natural justice. A review petition filed by the management before the Deputy Director was rejected and further appeal was filed before the Director of Education, who also rejected the same, but later the Director allowed a review petition filed by the management and set aside the order of the Deputy Director. The appellant filed a writ petition for quashing the order of the Director on the ground that he had no jurisdiction under the School Code to review his earlier order. The High Court dismissed it holding that the teachers working in the private school could not enforce their right under the school Code, which were not statutory rules. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant holding that an Officer of the Government is always amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court and that in that case the writ petition was directed against the order passed in quasi -judicial proceedings by the Director though in a case arising under the School Code and since the Director had assumed a jurisdiction to review his own orders not conferred on him, the appellant was entitled to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court has given three reasons for holding that the writ petition was maintainable. That judgment of the Supreme Court was referred to by the Full Bench of this Court in Ajmer Singhs case (1995(1) Shim. L.C. 395. The Full Bench observed as follows : "12. We may also refer to the decision of the apex Court in Tika Ram v. Mundikota Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others, (1984) 4 SCC 219. In that case the appellant was the Headmaster of a private school and he was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher by an order passed by the Management. An appeal was filed before the Deputy Director of Education, who allowed it. Subsequently the Management filed a review petition before the Director of Education which was allowed. On these facts, the apex Court held that an officer of the Government is always amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court and since the writ petition was directed against an order passed by the Director of Education, the appellant of that case was entitled to maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the case in hand also the impugned order was passed by the Administrator appointed by the Registrar under the provisions of the HP. Co -operative Societies Act and, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.