AJMER SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOC P AND H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was holding an appointment as a Field Sub-Inspector in the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limietd, Chandigarh, respondents No. 5, hereinafter referred to as the Marfed and his services were terminated by the Managing Director thereof, vide order Annexure P. 2 attached to the writ petition. He challenged that order in appeal before the Board of Directors, which was dismissed, vide order annexure 5, by respondent No. 4 exercising the power of the Administrator in place of the Board of Directors having been appointed thereto in terms of Section 26(ID) of the Punjab Co-operative Socities Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner has " assailed through this writ petition both the orders. Order, Annexure P. 5, was inter alia, challenged on the ground that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as the Administrator of the Marfed was an inition void and, therefore, the order that he passed sufferred from the same defect. The petitioner also sought to have the orders, appointing respondent No. 4 as Administrator and the one giving him extension, set aside.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection to the entertainability of the writ petition against them was raised. The petition was, therefore, admitted to the Full Bench, which, vide its judgement dated 6-8-1980 held that the Petition against respondent No. 5 was not competent and against rest of them the same was held to be maintainable to the limited extent of the challenge to the order, annexure P. 5, that is, the order annexure P. 5, that is, the order passed by respondent No. 4 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as being violative of the provisions of Section 26(ID) of the Act and the petition thereafter was ordered to be laid before a Single Bench to be dealt with on merits and that is how the petition has come up for hearing before me.

(3.) Mr. Baldev Singh Khoji, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the appointment order in terms Section 26(ID) of the Act could not be passed by the Additional Registrar, as the same had to be passed by the Registrar, that is, the Registrar proper and not merely an incumbent who happens to exercise the power of the Registrar. In the alternative. Mr. Khoji cancassed that even if the Additional Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar was held to be comepetent to appoing the Administrator in terms of the said section, he could not appoint the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to the said post.