I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) As per the allegations of the petitioners, they were appointed to different categories of service, of the Haryana State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, by its - Managing Director with the approval of the Chairman, Shri Udey Singh Dalai, respondent No. 5, in response to an advertisement published in the 'Economic Times' on April 7, 1979. They joined their respective posts on various dates (from April to July, 1979) detailed in Annexure P. 3. it is the admitted position that the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the Haryana State Cooperative Bank's Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under section 84 - A of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Their grouse now is that with the change of the hierarchy of the bank, the new Chairman and the Managing Director, in order to please their political bosses, are out to make their posts available to the men of their own choice and liking and with that and in view they have served the petitioners with notices to appear for interview afresh for appointment 10 the posts which they are holding, One such specimen notice is Annexure P. 5 to the position.
(2.) Though this course of action on the part of the respondents, on the face of it, appears to be curious and unusual, yet they have admitted it with the plea that the petitioners were appointed in utter disregard and violation of the Service Rules of the Bank and they cannot be deemed to be validly appointed in the eye of law. The petitioners were not appointed in response to the advertisement dated April 7, 1979 and out of 35 of them, at least 15 were appointed either before or after the prescribed date for the receipt of the applications in response to the said notice. In the case of 32 out of them, no prior approval was given by the Chairman of the Bank in terms of Rule 8.1(iii). Further no consideration was given to reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as required by Rule 8.5(iii). Hence the appointments of the petitioners cannot be treated as valid and have rather to be treated as void ab initio.
(3.) The primary submission of Mr. Prem Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioners now is that the action of the respondents in issuing notices to the petitioners to appear for interview afresh for appointment to the posts which they are holding, and thereby treating the petitioners to be not in service, is not only unknown to any procedure laid down by law, but is also mala fide. According to the learned counsel, the return filed by the respondents with the plea noted above makes the things more than clear. He maintains that had an opportunity been given to the petitioners to show as to how and why their appointment are in accordance with the Rules, they would have by evidence proved to the satisfaction of the appointing authority that there was nothing irregular or illegal in their appointments. Their case squarely is that they had applied for various posts in response to the advertisement by the Bank as already indicated, and their appointments were made by the Managing Director with the prior approval of the Chairman. In fact the Chairman of that time, that is, Shri Udey Singh Dala, respondent No. 5, has filed his return supporting the case of petitioners. In support of his above noted stand the learned counsel relies on the latest pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court L. G. Chaudhari Vs. The Secretary, L. S. G. Department, Government of Bihar and others, 1980(1) S. L. R 115. In that case the dispute between the parties was as to whether or not one Shri L. G, Chaudhri was confirmed in the post of Town Planner, in the service of the State of Bihar. The argument of the Attorney General to the effect that it being a disputed question of fact the High Court should not have ventured to decide this question, was negatived with the observation that "in the absence of the formal order drawn up in terms of Art. 166 of the Constitution it was certainly open to the appellant to prove by evidence aliunda that he had been appointed on permanent and substantive basis. As would be clear from this observation, it was a case where even the formal order of confirmation or permanent appointment on substantive basis was not forthcoming. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the appointment orders of then petitioners were issued and they joined their respective posts in pursuance of those orders. How far these orders were genuine or in conformity with the Rules, is a matter of evidence for which, to my mind, the petitioners are certainly entitled to be heard. As pointed out in the opening part of the judgment, the course now being adopted by the respondent bank is unknown to law or at least the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not been able to point out any rule or regulation in support of this course of action. He, however, maintains that since the appointments of the petitioners were not in consonance with the Rules, they cannot be said to have acquired a legal right to those posts and, therefore, asking them to appear for the interview afresh or not to treat them in service does not violate any of their legal rights. In support of this stand, the learned counsel seeks support from a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Harish Chandra Misra Vs. Honourable Railway Minister, Union of India and others, 1979 (1) S.L.R. 222. To my mind this judgment does not support his stand.;