SURESH versus YEOTMAL DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1023 · Decided: 04-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008) 3 S.C.R. 1023 
j 
SU RESH 
A 
v. 
YEOTMAL DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1728 of 2008) 
MARCH 4, 2008 
B 
. [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Seniority list - Name of appellant figured at Sl.No.4 in c 
seniority list whereas name of respondent No. 2 figured at 
SI.No. 1 -
Seniority list challenged by appellant before 
cooperative Court- Maintainability of- Held: Not maintainable 
- Candidates whose names appeared at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 were 
not impleaded as parties in the said proceedings - In their 
D 
• 
absence, disputf? could not be effectively adjudicated upon. 
' ' 
Promotion - Post of High Grade Manager - Cooperative 
society - Circular ~ssued by Registrar in exercise of its power 
under s. 74of1960 Act, stating that change in service conditions 
to be preceded by a notice as envisaged in 1946 Act- Legality E 
of promotion made in 1998 challenged on the ground that 
notice was issued only in 2001 -
Held: The Registrar 
exercises jurisdiction for laying down qualification for the post 
• 
of Manager by virtue of s. 7 4 of 1960 Act - While exercising 
such statutory power, requirement to comply with provisions F 
.._ 
of another statute was not necessary- Therefore, issuance of 
notice of change in service conditions as advised by Registrar · 
in terms of 1946 Act was not required - 1946 Act was meant 
for industrial workers and notfor those who exercise.supervisory 
jurisdiction in cooperative society -
On facts, successful G 
candidate fulfilled the prescribed qualifications - Hence, no 
case made out for interfering with the appointment - Bombay 
' 
Industrial Relations Act, 1946 -:- S.42 -
Maharashtra 
I 
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - S.74. 
1023 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant was appointed as clerk in 1974 and 
confirmed in 1994. Respondent no.2 was appointed as 
Development Officer in 1979 as a direct recruit. He was 
brought up on the select list for the purpose of promotion 
to the post of Manager in 1994. The name of the appellant 
B did not figure therein. A seniority list was published in 1995 
wherein the name of appellant figured at serial no.4 
whereas the name of the respondent no.2 figured at serial 
no.1. Respondent No.2 was promoted to the post of 
Senior Manager in 1998. 
c 
The appellant raised a dispute before the Cooperative 
Court questioning the said seniority list as also the 
promotion of the respondent no.2. The Cooperative Court 
allowed the application of appellant holding that the 
respondent no.2 did not possess the requisite 
D qualification. The Cooperative Appellate Court allowed the 
appeal filed by respondent no.2 holding that he had 
Master's degree with subject of Economics and a diploma 
in cooperative banking and his appointment itself was in 
select grade and so it could not be said that he does not 
E possess a qualification for being appointed to the post of 
Manager. Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court 
which was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
F the promotion of the respondent no. 2 to the post of 
Manager was illegal as the post of Agricultural 
Development Officer was not the feeder post; and that 
having regard to the provisions contained in Sub-section 
(1) of s.42 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, 
G any change in the service conditions was required to be 
preceded by a proper notice as was advised by the 
Registrar of Cooperative Societies in his order dated 
6.08.1996 and as such a notice was issued only on 
24.09.2001, the promotion of the respondent no. 2 must 
H be held to be illegal. 
• 
t 
, 
( 
SURESH v. YEOTMAL DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK 
1025 
LTD. & ANR. 
J 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 Respondent No. 1 is a cooperative society. 
It has its own rules and bye-laws. The service rules framed 
by the respondent no. 1 stand approved by the Registrar. 
In the seniority list published in the year 1995, the position 8 
of the appellant was at SI. No. 4. Those candidates whose 
'>i 
names appeared at SI. Nos. 2 and 3 were not impleaded 
as parties in the said proceeding. In their absence, the 
dispute could not have been effectively adjudicated 
upon. The dispute raised by the app~llant before the c 
·Cooperative Appellate Court, therefore, was not 
maintainable. [Para 12] [1032:A, B; 1033-A] 
Rashmi Mishra v. M.P Public Service Commission and 
Ors. (2006) 12 sec 724 - relied on. 
' 
1,2. Even oth

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.