D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The award dated 16th August, 1996 passed in Adjudication Case Nos. 143/1982 and 149/1982 has been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. H.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the order on the ground that in view of Regulation 5 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, selection could be made only by the Board and the selection made by the Selection Committee other than the Board, cannot be sustained. Secondly, he contends that even if such selection can be made by the Selection Committee as provided under Regulation 5 as amended by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employee Service (Second Amendment) Regulations. 1979. even then such selection can be made only after a requisition is sent to the Board. In the present case, such requisition having not been sent, the selection made is bad. His next contention was that under 1979 Amendment, the Selection Committee should consist of Chairman, Assistant Registrar and the Secretary, whereas in the present case admittedly the Additional District Co-operative Officer had participated in the selection instead of Assistant Registrar of the district. Therefore, according to him, constitution of the Selection Committee was bad and as such the committee was incompetent to make the selection. He next contended that the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the 'Sachiv' and not. by the appointing authority. On the other hand, the appointing authority had cancelled the said selection by resolution dated 21st May, 1980 and therefore, the respondent cannot claim any right on the basis of unauthorised appointment letter issued by the Secretary.
(3.) Mr. Arun Tandon. learned Counsel representing the respondents on the other hand, contends that by reason of 1979 Amendment of Regulation 5, no requisition is necessary to be sent to the Board for selection. Secondly, such selection can be made under such amended provision by the Selection Committee as approved in the Amended Regulation Clause (6) of Regulation 5. He next contends that by reason of a Government Order issued by the department whenever the Assistant Registrar is unable to participate in the selection committee, in that event it is open to him to nominate an Additional District Co-operative Officer for participating in the selection committee in his place. Since the said G.O. has not been challenged in the present writ petition. therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that participation of Additional District Co-operative Officer has vitiated constitution of the selection committee. He next contends that in the written statement the petitioner had contended that appointment letter was issued by the committee of management. It was also so found by the Labour Court in the award itself and the learned Counsel for the petitioner having not disputed the same particularly when written statement has not been made part of the record, for which, according to the learned Counsel, an adverse presumption may be drawn against the petitioner, the finding of fact so arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be interferred within the writ jurisdiction and the same being a finding of fact, this Court should be slow interferring with the same unless it is perverse.;