1. In this writ petition, notice was issued regarding issue of rule. The respondents though served, have remained unrepresented. The petition has come up in ‘B’ Group for preliminary hearing.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard. The writ petitioner is an employee of the 3rd respondent-Bellary Co-operative City Bank Limited, a Co-operative Society duly incorporated under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) He entered the services of the said society as a Bill Collector in the year 1961.
3. By dint of hard work, he was promoted to the post of clerk in the year 1966. He was also later on deputed to undergo Co-operative Trainin at the cost of the 3rd respondent-Society. He passed the said course in II class. On 19th March, 1976 the Society by its order promoted the petitioner as an Accountant of the Bank in the Pay Scale, of Rs. 150-8-190 EB-10-320 with admissible dearness allowance and other allowances, adding two additional increments. On 10.1.1979 nearly three years after the promotion of the petitioner as accounts clerk, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bellary, in the course of his visit to the 3rd respondent-Bank, found that the appointment of the petitioner was in contravention of Rule 17-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the Act. Rule 17-B of the Rules prescribes certain qualifications for Accountants, Clerks, Ledger-Keepers, Sales Clerks and Shorffs. The minimum qualifications required are S.S.L.C and a pass in the Examination in Book-Keeping, Banking, Co-operation and Auditing held by the Government or Examinations conducted by the Regional Co-operative Schools. The petitioner lacks qualification in so far as it requires a Secondary School Leaving Certificate and in other matters he is adequately qualified having obtained a diploma in Co-operative Management and Administration. Co-operative laws and other laws, in Book Keeping, Accountancy, Auditing and Banking in the Examinations held during the 12th Session between 2.3.1970 and 22.6.1970
4. Thereafter the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his letter dated 12.2.1979 drew the attention of the Administrator who by then had taken over the Management of the 3rd respondent Bank, and required him to act on the letter of the Assistant Registrar addressed to the Administrator dated 30.1.1978 Accordingly, the Administrator by his proceedings dated 14th February, 1979, reverted the petitioner from the post of Accountant, as he lacked one of the qualifications prescribed by Rule 17B of the Rule. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has asked this Court to quash Ext. C, D and E which are, the communication of the Assistant Registrar, the direction of the Deputy Registrar dated 12.2.1979 and the final proceedings of the 3rd respondent-Administrator. It is not possible to quash Exhibits C and D inasmuch as they are directions issued in the nature of correspondences and are not statutory orders.
5. When, admittedly the petitioner lacks the prescribed qualification under Rule 17-B of the Rules, it cannot be contended for him that the respondents 1 and 2 acted without jurisdiction to issue the instructions which they have to the 3rd respondent. Shri Raghavendrachar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has strongly urged that having regard to Rule 17(2), the qualifications prescribed under Rule 17-B of the Rules cannot possibly have application to a person who is promoted to one of the posts enumerated in the said Rules. This is a self-defeating argument inasmuch as the Rule 17(2) of the Rules requires that all appointments under A and B of Rule 17 are to be made only if the candidate possesses the qualification specified for that post. Shri Raghavendrachar further contended that Rule 17(2) had application only to direct recruits and not to promotees. He has not been able to point out any Rules or Bye-laws of the Society which indicated that the post enumerated under Rule 17-B of the Rules, could also be filled up by promotion. When statute expressly authorises the appointment and does not prescribe the modes of appointment it should be understood that all modes of appointment are available to the appointing authority. This petitioner cannot contend that he can be appointed by one of the methods without possessing the required qualification. The learned Counsel has further relied upon Bye-law 23(a) of the 3rd respondent-Society which empowers the President to make appointments. That power, there may be, but that does not include the power to make appointment contrary to the Statute. Therefore, this argument also must fail.
6. Lastly, relief is sought against Ext. E which is issued by a Co-operative Society. The Supreme Court time and again has held that Co-operative Societies are not on the same footing as statutory bodies created by a statute and therefore are not State or Local Authority within the meaning of the term as defined under Art. 12 of the Constitution. Since this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 in relation to persons other than State under Art. 12 of the Constitution for issue ex a writ of Certiorari, this Court cannot interfere with Ext. E.
7. For the above reasons, it is unnecessary to issue rule in this case and the petition stands dismissed.
8. There will be no order as to costs.