- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, CJ. Feeling ag grieved by the Judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court on 8th October, 1991 in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions No. 3665 of 1991, 3480 of 1991, 3481 of 1991,3509 of 1991,3482 of 1991 and 134 of 1991 both the parties in the cases have filed special Appeals assailing the judg ment. The operative portion of the judg ment reads as follows: "in view of the above discussion, writ peti tion No. 134 of 1991 fails and is dismissed. In so far as petitions No. 3665 of 1991,3480 of 1991, 3481 of 1991, 3509 of 1991, 3482 of 1991 are concerned, they are allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioners Shiv Kumar, Bhagwati Prasad, Shash Nath Singh, Ram Brikash Verma and Ram Asrey on the basis of the selection list prepared by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12-4-84 under Rule 25 of the Rules against the existing or future vacancy. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. "
(2.) WHILE Special No. 134 of 1991 has been filed by vaqil Mishra, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 134 of 1991, the remaining Special Appeals have been filed by the opposite parties in the cases, that is, Writ Petitions No. 3665 of 1991, 3480 of 1991,3481 of 1991,3509 of 1991 and 3482 of 1991, District Administrative Commit tee, U. P. Co-operative Societies Centralised Service, Gorakhpur, Mem ber- Secretary, District Administrative Committee/district Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur and the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. , Gorakhpur, against the order allowing the writ petitions. The core question that falls for determination in all the cases is whether the writ petitioners are entitled to be appointed as secretaries of the Primary Agricultural Co operative Societies (Shortly referred to as Primary Societies) on the basis of the select list prepared by the District Commit tee without any approval of the State Cadre Authority. If the question is answered in the affirmative, then it is to be further con sidered whether the learned single Judge is right in holding that Vaqil Misra, appellant in Special Appeal No. 134 of 1991, was not entitled to the relief granted to other writ petitioners, or to put is differently whether his case is separate and distinguishable from other writ petitioners. It may be stated here that the case of the opposite parties is that thought the writ petitioners were included in the select list prepared by the District Com mittee, the said list was never approved by the State Cadre Authority and, therefore, they could not claim appointment on the basis of inclusion in the select list. The factual back-drop of the case, onwhich there is on dispute, maybe stated thus. The posts for which the petitioners were selected were all in respect of Category 4 Primary Societies. The post of Secretary is included in the Centralised Service. On being selected by the Selection Committee, the names of the writ petitioners found place in the list of 35 candidates selected for appointment. Since no appointment orders were issued to them the writ petitioners filed writ peti tions seeking a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to issue appointment let ters in their favour. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the recruitment was made in terms of Rule 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules), which makes no provision for approval of the select list prepared by the Selection Committee. Therefore, submit the writ petitioners, the opposite parties were clearly in error in declining to issue appointment orders to them on the plea of want of approval of the State Cadre Authority.
(3.) THE gist of the case of the opposite parties is that recruitment of the writ petitioners for the post of Secretary was made under the order issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. dated 16-4- 1981 (Annexure CA1) and not under Rule 25. In the said order of the Registrar it is specifically stated that on the select list prepared by the Selection Committee being approved by the State Cadre Authority, appointments will be made in the available vacancies. Alterna tively the opposite parties have pleaded that in case the recruitment is held to have been made under Rule 25 then the condi tion prescribed therein that a candidate must appear in a written test has not been fulfilled by the writ petitioners. THErefore, submit the opposite parties, viewed from any angle the writ petitioners claim of ap pointment as Secretaries of Primary Societies is not tenable in law. To complete the narration of facts, it may be stated here that in so far as the case of Vaqil Misra, the appellant in Spe cial Appeal No. 134 of 1991, is concerned, the learned single Judge declined to grant relief to him for the reason that he had been appointed secretary in 1986 on an adhoc basis, but was reverted to his sub stantive post on grounds connected with misconduct involving misappropriation of funds. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge held the view that it would not be proper to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution in his favour.;