- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This Court vide its order dated 1-7-1996 dismissed this writ petition in which the petitioner Km. Poonan Srivastava has sought the quashing of the impugned order dated 13-5-96. By the said impugned order the promotion of the petitioner which was given to her in the pay-scale of 1600-2660 vide order dated 28-4-95 had been recalled. However, as the order dated 13-5-96 spelled out that the petitioner had been promoted illegally without following any procedure and without considering the claim of other employees which were 32 in numbers, the said promotion order had been recalled. On 1-7-96 while dis missing the writ petition, the respondent No. 3 Shri Devender Chaudhary, the then Managing Director of1 UPICA was im-pleaded in the case in personal capacity and was directed to explain the cir cumstances in which the petitioner was granted promotion in the case in personal capacity and was directed to explain the circumstances in which the petitioner was granted promotion. In response to the order dated 1-7-96 the respondent No. 3 has filed the counter affidavit.
(2.) HEARD Shri V K. Birla, learned counsel for the UPICA and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 3 and perused the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3. The documents which have been filed alongwith the counter affidavit by Shri Devender Chaudhary revealed that the entire administration of UPICA so far as the service matters of the employees are concerned had always been run by the law of jungle. All the orders regarding promo tions of the employees etc. had been passed in flagrant violation of the statutory rules. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Ad ditional Advocate General has fairly con ceded that the impugned promotion order dated 28-4-95 cannot be defended as it was passed in flagrant violation of regulations framed for this purpose. However, Shri Dwivedi has shown the documents which made the Court much more concern regarding this case.
(3.) THE petitioner in the instant peti tion Km. Poonam Srivastava had been granted promotion earlier by the predecessor of Shri Devender Chaudhari in the same manner. THE respondent No. 3 has take over as the Managing Director of UPICA in May, 1993 and had been trans ferred from there on 29-4-95. Annexure-7 to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 makes it clear that Shri R. N. Chaturvedi, who was the Managing Director of the UPICA earlier had passed the order dated 10-5-88 for dividing the work amongst the various employees of the UPICA and the another Managing Director namely, Shri Sudhir Kumar had promoted the petitioner, Km. Poonam Srivastava and three other employees of the UPICA which includes Smt. Rajni Gupta, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14882 of 1995 wherein the promotion order dated 28-4-95 been challenged. So for as the legal position is con cerned, Section 31-Aof the U. P. Co-opera tive Societies Act, 1965 deals with the ap pointment of the Managing Director in stead of Secretary for Apex Societies. Clause V of Sub-section 4 of Section 31-A provides that the Managing Director shall be responsible for the general conduct, supervision and management of the day-to-day business and affairs of the society. Section 122 of the Act provides for the authority to control employees of the co operative societies, but the service condi tions of the employees are Governed by U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulations, 1975. Clause IV of Regulation 2 defines the 'board' which means the U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board and as per Regulation 5 every appointment or promotion made in the said society shall be made with the consultation of the Board. Provide to Regulation 5 reads as under: Provided that any appointment thus made without consultation with the board shall in every case, cease to have effect from the date on which the period of six months expires and the employees promoted to the higher post shall unless he has already been reverted to his original post within the said period of-six months be deemed to have reverted from the date, to the post held by him immediately before such promotion. (Emphasis added) Provided further that the employee appointed to the higher post under this sub-clause shall, in no circumstances, be promoted under this sub-clause to any still higher post within the said period of six months, nor shall be appointed under this sub- clause to the same post again after his reversion under the first proviso.;