S. K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) THE material facts are these. On or before 5th July, 1985, the petitioner had been appointed as a Section Officer in the District Cooperative Bank, Dehradun, by its Committee of Management. On 5th July, 1985, the Committee of Management was superseded and in purported exercise of power under section 29 (4) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies appointed the Assistant Registrar as an Administrator of the Bank. THE Deputy Registrar while appointing the Administrator made it clear that he (the Administrator) will exercise all the powers of the Committee of Management except the power of transferring employees of the Bank and the power to make fresh appointments. On 14th October, 1986, the Secretary of the Bank passed an order transferring the petitioner from the Head Office to a branch office at Kalsi. On 28th October, 1986, the Deputy Registrar modified his order dated 5th July, 1985 and conferred upon the Administrator all the powers of Committee of Management (the result was that the Administrator acquired the power of transferring employees and also the power of making fresh appointments). On 6th November, 1986, the instant petition was presented in this Court with the principal prayer that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the order of transfer dated 14th October, 1986, passed by the Secretary. THE ground taken was that the Secretary had no jurisdiction to pass the order of transfer. This Court, on 6th November, 1986, passed the following order :- " List after six weeks. THE appellate committee referred to in paragraph 40 shall, it may be expected, dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of transfer dated Nth October, 1986 vide annexure 16 within this period "
(2.) THE representation appeal of the petitioner was disposed of by a committee which has been described by the respondents in their counter-affidavit as an " Administrative Committee " on 9th December, 1986. THE committee ratified the order of the Secretary dated 14th October, 1986 transferring the petitioner. However, it also modified his order by saying that the petitioner will be posted as a Senior Branch Manager at Premnagar. THE said decision of the committee has also been impugned in the present petition by seeking an amendment. THE committee has also been impleaded as one of the respondents. The first question is whether the Secretary had any jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner by his order dated 14th October, 1986, The petitioner has categorically averred that he was appointed as a Section Officer by Committee of Management. The factum that the Committee of Management had appointed him is not denied in the counter-affidavit. The assertion is that the Committee of Management had no jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner as a Section Officer. In adjudicating upon the present controversy, it is irrelevant as to whether the Committee of Management had any jurisdiction to appoint the petitioner or not. The fact remains that the Committee of Management had appointed him. Therefore, ex- facie, the Secretary could not pass the order of transfer. On behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed upon the proviso to Regulation 15 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975. A reading of Regulation 15 will indicate that the power of making the appointment is vested in the Committee of Management. However, the manner of appointment is controlled by the Regulations. In the proviso the only requirement is that the letter of appointment shall, in the case of Secretary be issued by the Chairman and in all other cases shall be issued by the Secretary of the Society. The mere fact that the Secretary is empowered to issue the letter of appointment does not mean that the Secretary has the power to make appointment. If the Secretary could not appoint the petitioner as a Section Officer, he had no jurisdiction to transfer him.
(3.) IN our opinion, the order of 14th October, 1986, now stands superseded by the order of the " Administrative Committee " dated 9th December, 1986. IN substance, the order of the " Administrative Committee " dated 9th December, 1986, means that the petitioner was transferred from the Head Office as Senior Branch Manager at Premnagar. Therefore, attention has to be focussed on the legality of the order of the " Administrative Committee " dated 9th December, 1986. The Committee of Management stood superseped. An Administrator came in. The orders dated 5th July, 1985 and 28th October, 1986 passed by the Deputy Registrar, if read together, make it crystal clear that the Administrator was empowered to pass an order of transfer. The short question, therefore is whether the decision of the " Administrative Committee " can be considered to be an order passed by the Administrator ? We have already indicated that the " Administrative Committee " was dealing with a representation/appeal of the petitioner under orders passed by this Court. This Court had not directed the " Administrative Committee " to pass a fresh order. The scope of the representation/appeal was a limited one. In it, the only controversy was whether the order passed by the Secretary on 14th October, 1986, transferring the petitioner to Kalsi was a good order. While disposing of the appeal, the " Administrative Committee " took into its head to pass a resolution ratifying the order of the Secretary and changing the place of transfer of the petitioner from Kalsi to Premnagar. The decision of the " Administrative Committee " is bad for more than one reason. First, it exceeded its jurisdiction as to travelled beyond the scope of the representation/appeal preferred by the petitioner. Secondly, it had no jurisdiction at all to ratify the order of the Secretary. This could be done only if the " Administrative Committee " had the power or jurisdiction to pass an order of transfer. It is well-known that no amount of ratification can instil life in a void act. The order of the Secretary was still-born and life could not be infused in it by pumping in any amount of blood. Surely, the " Administrative Committee " could not usurp the jurisdiction of the Committee of Management which, for the time being, vested in the Administrator. For passing an order of transfer an application of mind is necessary. Only one person is required to apply his mind, namely, the Administrator and not a body of persons. It is immaterial that the Administrator was also one of the members of the " Administrative Committee ". The participation in the decision making as to whether the petitioner should or should not be transferred of outsiders vitiated the decision that the petitioner should be transferred. We have, therefore, no hesitation in taking the view that the order dated 9th December, 1987 passed by the " Administrative Committee " was without jurisdiction.;