Amitava Roy, C.J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dt. 15.01.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13461/2012 dismissing the appellant/writ -petitioner's challenge to the direction of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, hereafter described as Registrar) as referred to in the impugned office order dt. 04.12.2012 whereby it was proposed to terminate his contract services, he seeks redress in the instant appeal. We have heard Mr. H.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anand Purohit, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4. For the order proposed to be passed in the instant appeal, we are not issuing any formal notice to the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) SHORTLY put the facts necessary for the present adjudication are that the appellant/writ -petitioner, who had been serving as Manager with the Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Co -operative Society under the Rajas than Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (for short, hereafter referred to as the Act), had retired on 30.11.2012 on reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Thereafter, in recognition of his services, the Society in its meeting held on 29.11.2012, to cater to the administrative exigencies, resolved to appoint him on contract basis for a period of six months. As a result, the appellant/writ -petitioner started rendering his services as such as a contractual employee as Manager of the Society. Thereafter, vide office order dt. 04.12.2012, the Managing Director of the Society in response to the instructions contained in the letter dt. 12.10.2012 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to the effect that such post retirement contractual appointment was invalid, proposed to terminate his services. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court and by the judgment and order impugned, his challenge was negated. Mr. Sidhu with reference to Sections 30B as well as 125 of the Act has urged that having regard to the vested autonomy of the Co -operative Society amongst others in the matter of recruitment of its staff, the Registrar had no overriding jurisdiction to intervene and thus, the proposed termination of his services as communicated vide office order dt. 04.12.2012 is void ab initio. As the learned Single Judge missed to notice this vital legal aspect of the controversy, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with, he urged.
(3.) MR . Anand Purohit, on instructions and on an interpretation to the above two provisions of the Act, has submitted that in view of the proviso to Section 125 of the Act, which visibly restricts the power of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to curtail and undermine the autonomy of the Society as recognized in Section 30B, the contemplated termination of the contract services of the appellant/writ -petitioner seems to be in contravention of these provisions.;