V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 25. 3. 1992 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana.
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the petitioner, a Junior Accountant in The Karan Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Karnal was allegedly promoted as Chief Executive Officer by the Board of Administrators in their meeting held on 4. 10. 1991. One Balbir Singh (respondent No. 3) vide his application dated 29. 1. 1992 made to the Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar, complained that the meeting held on 4. 10. 1991 being illegal, be declared invalid under Rule 110 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Rules, 1989 (for short the 1989 Rules ). The meeting was sought to be annulled or invalidated on the ground that under rule 110 of the 1989 Rules, meeting of the Committee was required to be called after giving fifteen days notice whereas meeting was convened on 27. 9. 1989 for 4. 10. 1991. The other ground taken was that as per agenda item No. 4 of the meeting, the only item to be considered was the staff strength but the Board of Administrators promoted the petitioner from the post of Junior Accountant to the post of Chief Executive Officer whereas there is post of Senior Accountant between the Junior Accountant and Chief Executive Officer. The deputy Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar, vide order dated 25. 3. 1992 declared the proceedings of meeting dated 4. 10. 1991 as invalid on both the grounds and directed the Bank to reconsider the matter as per rules. This order is now being impugned here in this writ petition. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed separate written statements. Respondent No. 2 in his written statement stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Executive Officer by the Board of Administrators against the service rules of Haryana Urban Co-operative Banks Staff Service Rules, 1989. According to appendix 'b' of the Rules, Chief Executive Officer can be recruited directly or by transfer on deputation of a person from the Co-operative Department and the qualification for the post of Chief Executive Officer is at least 2nd Class Graduate and CA. II. B. with 5 years experience of bank in supervisory capacity whereas the petitioner is only a third class graduate. Copy of the marks sheet of the petitioner has been attached as Annexure R-2 to the written statement. The filing of the application by respondent No. 3 in collusion with respondent No. 1 has been denied and it has been stated that resolution dated 4. 10. 1991 was passed by the Board of Administrators in collusion with the petitioner and the act of the Board of Administrators in promoting the petitioner to the post of Chief Executive Officer from that of Junior Accountant is against the rules and against the interest of the Society. It has also been stated that the agenda note, as alleged in the writ petition, was not circulated to the member of the Board of Administrators. Copy of the agenda has been attached as Annexure R-3 to the written statement. It is further stated that the election for the Directors were to be held on 13. 1. 1992 and in order to help the petitioner and with a view to give undue advantage to the petitioner, the official Administrator of the Board promoted him to the post of Chief Executive Officer in meeting held on 4. 10. 1991. Respondent No. 1 has denied the allegations of mala fide levelled against him in passing the impugned order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 3 had no locus standi to file an application for setting at naught the proceedings of the meeting held on 4. 10. 1991. He further contended that seven days notice was required for holding meeting of the Board of Administrators and this having been done, respondent No. 1 was not justified in law in declaring the meeting invalid. In support of his argument, he referred to the judgment in K. Narasimhia v. H. C. Singri Gowda and Ors. , A. I. R. 1966 Supreme Court 330.;