- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard Sri M. P. Gupta for the petitioner, Sri O. P. Singh for respondent No. 1 and Sri R. S. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 27-12-2004 passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the approval of the appointment of the petitioner has been refused. Pivotal facts relevant for the decision of this petition are that eleven posts of class IV employees in District Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Mirzapur were advertised on 23-6-2004. Petitioner and others applied and the petitioner was duly selected as shown in the select list published on 5th July, 2004. However, the respondent Service Board refused to grant the approval on the ground that the cut off date with respect to the age of candidates was fixed against the provisions of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the objection raised on behalf of the Board was highly technical and since the petitioner was otherwise qualified, the approval ought to have been granted and the appointment letter issued.
(3.) THE U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board was constituted in exercise of powers under Section 122 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 for the purposes of recruitment, training and disciplinary control of employees of Co-operative Societies. THE U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulation, 1975, governs the service conditions of such employees. Regulation 5 provides for recruitment and appointments in the Co-operative Societies through the Board whether it is by direct recruitment or by promotion. Sub-clause (v) mandates that every selection shall be subject to the approval of the Board and the appointment can only be made with the prior approval of the Board. Regulation 12 provides that if the posts are advertised in the first half of the year, i. e. ending on June 30, the cut off date for the purpose of age shall be first of January of that year and in case of advertisement subsequent to 30th June, the cut off date would be first of July of the year of recruitment. It further provides that the candidates should not be less than 18 years or more than 35 years of age on the aforesaid cut off date. Regulation 15 provides that no appointment can be made except in the manner provided in the regulations without the prior approval of the Board and in the order as mentioned in the list communicated by the Board. A copy of the advertisement is annexed with the petition and admittedly it was published on 23rd June, 2004 but the cut off date has been fixed as 1st July, 2004. In the impugned order the Board found that the fixation of the cut-off date was against the provisions of Regulation 12 and this violation deprived large number of candidates from applying for the post. It is also apparent that though the advertisement was made on 23rd June, 2004 but only eight days were given for submission of the forms i. e. uptil 30th June, 2004, while the interview was fixed for 4th July, 2004. The nature of the powers conferred on the Board is one of trust of vast number of eligible unemployed citizens. The Board is the repository of the interest of all those eligible persons who may apply for recruitment. The petitioner though contends that it is a mere technicality, but the Board has to examine the matter from a larger and broader perspective and has to act as a guardian for equal right protection of such unemployed people. The Apex Court through a Constitutional Bench pronouncement in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) Ors. , 2006 (3) LBESR 260 (SC) : 2006 (4) S. C. C. 1, has cautioned the Courts against individualization of justice. It held that high prerogative writs should not normally be issued except after balancing rights of the numerous persons who are not before the Court as against the few who approach it. Considering large number of decisions where directions were issued presumably on the basis of equitable considerations, it posed a question and then answered it to the following effect: "the question arises, equity to whom? Equity for the handful of people who have approached the Court with a claim, or equity for the teeming millions of this country seeking employment and seeking a fair opportunity for competing for employment? When one side of the coin is considered, the other side of the coin has also to be considered and the way open to any Court of law or justice, is to adhere to the law as laid down by the Constitution and not to make directions, which at times, even if do not run counter to the constitutional scheme, certainly tend to water down the constitutional requirements. ";