U.C. Srivastava, S.H.A. Raza, JJ. - (1.) In this bunch of writ petitions which have been tagged together, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order 29th April, 1988 issued by the Registrar Co-operative Society addressed to the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies in Uttar Pradesh informing them that the Secretaries who were selected according to the direction dated 5-2-1988 should not be appointed and yet it has been learnt that some of the Societies have appointed such persons. Even though it was directed that Secretaries or Acting Secretaries who were (sic) before selection should be allowed to work and if the selected Secretaries have taken over charge they should be relieved and the Secretaries who were working before selection should be appointed and the Accountants who have been so selected as Secretaries and some of them have been appointed as such their services should be terminated. By another order dated 23rd May, 1988 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies it was directed that as he had received complaints that serious irregularities in the selection were committed and unqualified and incompetent persons were selected, hence T. P. Singh was appointed an Enquiry Officer and he was directed to submit his report regarding the Selection of the Secretaries. He submitted report that selection was not made fair and bona fide and it was against the departmental directions and rules consequently such candidates who had not prescribed qualifications or were in competent were allowed to appear in examination and they were also interviewed. Hence it was suspicious and defective and liable to be set aside. Consequently, entire proceedings of selection were cancelled and selection list was declared illegal and unenforceable.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that all of them are trained and all of them successfully completed six months co-operative training. The Registrar Co-operative Society issued Circular No. 131/Cardre/Prarambhik Bind Sahkari Samiti Adhiniyam, dated Lucknow 5th February, 1989 by which he directed to fill in the posts of Secretary/Sachiv in primary Agricultural Credit Societies. In various regions this was done by means of holding the written examination and interview and on the qualifications prescribed under Rule 23 to the trained and experienced persons minimum qualification for appearing in examination was kept Intermediate with Economics or Agriculture or Science, and the age-limit was between 21 to 45 years.
(3.) In pursuance of the aforesaid circular issued by the Registrar Cooperative Society, Faizabad who was Chairman of the Regional Administrative Committee advertised the post of Secretary in the two Newspapers and invited applications for the Selection of Secretary for primary Co-operative Societies and the last date for filing the application was 6th March, 1988, These petitioners fulfilled the qualifications and they appeared in the written examination which took place on 22nd March, 1988. The result was declared and the notice regarding the successful candidates was posted in the office of the Deputy Registrar and the successful candidates were called for interview which took place on 26th March 1988. Result of the interview was published in Hindi Newspaper Janmorcha on 15th April, 198N Thereafter successful candidates requested for the appointment as Secretaries but the appointment letter was not being issued by the Regional Committee through its Chairman on the ground that the selection has already been cancelled by the order of the Registrar dated 29th April, 1988. According to the petitioner the Registrar under political pressure had issued the circular dated 29th April, 1988 which was applicable to all the members of Uttar Pradesh According to the petitioner the circular dated 29th April, 1988 is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the same could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been further said that once the letter for conducting examination in accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules has been issued and result has been declared after examination and interview and the petitioners had been declared successful then it is not open for opposite-party to pass any order by means of which the right of the successful candidates have been affected.;