- (1.) SECOND stay application has been filed by the counsel for the petitioner even while the first stay application is pending before this Court. Consequently, the second stay applicantion is dismissed as not maintainable.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents as also perused the writ petition. This petition has been filed against the orders dated 7th October, 2011 passed by the Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Sawaimadhopur and the order dated 14th November, 2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') that the appointment of the petitioner no. 2 Giriraj Prasad Gupta as the Manager of the petitioner Wajirpur Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. ('petitioner Society' for brevity') by the Board of Directors was in excess of its powers consequent to which its order appointing the Giriraj Prasad Gupta as Manager of the Society was liable to be quashed and set aside. In my considered opinion, the order dated 14th November, 2011 passed by the Tribunal is well considered order holding that the power under Section 30B of the Amended Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 could not be invoked to make an appointment contrary to the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 and Pacs Managers Service Conditions, 2008. Reference has been made to rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules of 2008 which prohibits the continuation in any manner of a superannuating employee of the society. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Section 30B of the Act of 2001, the Societies have been bestowed complete autonomy in respect of matters relating to personnel, policy, staff, recruit, post and compensation to staff. It is submitted that within clause (a) of Section 30B, the petitioner Society would have the power under the statute to appoint a person on contractual basis to work as an employee of the Society subsequent to his superannuation. It is submitted that the findings of the Tribunal with regard to prohibition under rule 2 of Rules of 2008, vitiating the appointment of Mr. Gupta as Manager of the petitioner Society are incorrect inasmuch as the Rules of 2008 cannot provide for situations in contradiction to what are contemplated and permitted under the parent act. Mr. K.C. Chandel appearing on behalf of the State would however submit that clause (a) of Section 30B of the Act of 2001 only confers autonomy in financial and internal administrative matters to short term cooperative credit structure society in matters of policy pertaining to their personnel staffing, recruitment, post and compensation to staff. It is submitted that the order of appointment of the petitioner no.2 herein by the petitioner society is not a matter within a policy decision of the Society but an isolated act of conferment of patronage on a superannuating employee. Counsel submits that it is not the case of the petitioner Society that its Board of Directors has taken a policy decision for recruiting employees as Manager of the Society subsequent to their superannuation on the contractual basis. It is submitted that in the event such a decision were to be taken by the Cooperative Society-the petitioner no.1 herein, it would have been possible for the petitioner Society to contend that the appointment of the petitioner no. 2 as Manager of the Cooperative Samiti on a consolidated salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month post his superannuation was taken under an existing policy of the Society. It is submitted that thus the order of the Tribunal holding the re-employment of a superannuating employee as a Manager of the petitioner Society as illegal is an order routed in statutory rules more particularly rule 2 of Rules of 2008, which prohibits continuation in any manner whatsoever of a superannuating employee in the employment on contract basis with the Society. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter, I am of the considered opinion that Section 30B of the Act of 2001 more particularly clause (a) thereof cannot confer any power on cooperative socities to make isolated appointments contrary to the provisions of the service rules of 2008. Admittedly no policy decision has been taken by the Board of Directors of the petitioner Society for appointing Managers thereof on contractual basis on consolidated salary subsequent to their superannuation contrary to specific provisoins of rule 2 of Rules of 2008. I therefore, find no error legal or factual in the orders dated 7th October, 2011 and 14th November, 2011. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner at this stage, has submitted that the State Government should be directed to appoint a full time manager of the petitioner society in accordance with law. This aspect of the matter is not subject matter of the writ petition as laid before this court. However, as the prayer is innocuous and not opposed by the counsel for the respondent State, it is directed that in the interest of justice, that in the event the petitioner submits a representation before the State Government for appointment of full time Manager, the State Government shall take necessary steps and make the requisite appointment in accordance with law within eight weeks of receiving the request from the petitioner Society. ;