Dismissed

Sumat Pal Kashyap v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2018SPLA/354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the appointment of the appellant as Secretary of a Cooperative Society, holding that the disqualification under Section 124 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 did not apply because his wife was not a member of the Committee of Management at the time of his appointment.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed; appointment upheld as valid.

Sumat Pal Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 354 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Sumat Pal Kashyap Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- B. Malik,Amit Malik,Arshid Husain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Lal

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Sumat Pal Kashyap claiming himself to be as President of Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., in District Muzzafarnagar has filed this Special Appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 30 March 2018 by which the writ petition filed by respondent no.6 in this Special Appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 23 February, 2018 passed by the Director of Fisheries in the State Government was allowed.

¶6

The Deputy Director of Fisheries had passed an order removing the writ petitioner from the post of Secretary of the Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. for the reason that he was appointed on 26 September 2012 but his wife became a member of the Committee of Management of the Society on 30 September 2014 and so his appointment was in violation of provisions of Section 124 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968.

¶7

What was sought to be urged before the learned Judge by the writ petitioner was that the provisions of Rule 124 would not apply as the appointment of the writ petitioner was prior to the election of his wife on 30 September 2014 as a Secretary, of the Committee of Management. This submission found favour of the learned Judge and the writ petition was allowed.

¶8

This Special Appeal has neither been filed by the Deputy Registrar, Fisheries/Deputy Director, Fisheries nor by the Committee of Management but by a person who claims that he is the President of the Society. In the writ petition, he was respondent No.7 as ex-member of the Society. It would not

¶9

be appropriate for us to determine in this Special Appeal as to whether the appellant is a member of the Society but what is relevant to be noted is that the Committee of Management of the Society has not filed this Special Appeal. It needs to be noted that the Committee of Management of the Society is the Appointing Authority and a member of the Society, even if it be assumed that the contention of the appellant that the President of the Society is correct, cannot be permitted to file Special Appeal.

¶10

In any view of the matter, we find no error in the judgment and order of the learned Judge as the appellant was appointed prior to the election of his wife as Secretary of the Society on 30 September 2014.

¶11

Rule 124 of the Rules, on which reliance had been placed by the Deputy Director for terminating the services of the appellant is reproduced below:-

¶12

"124 (1) No cooperative society shall appoint any person as its secretary who does not possess the qualifications laid down under Section 120, or who fails to furnish the security as may, if any, be required under that Section or who is a near relation of a member of the Committee of Management of the society. Every such appointment shall be subject to the regulations, if any, framed under Section 121 of 122."

¶13

A perusal of Rules indicates that a Cooperative Society cannot appoint a person as a Secretary if he is a near relation of a Member of the Committee of Management of the Society. At the time the writ petitioner was appointed, the wife was not a member of the Committee of Management.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the appointment of the writ petitioner was bad in law as it was prior to the registration of the Society. This was not a ground taken by the Deputy Director, Fisheries for terminating the services of the writ petitioner and, therefore, it is open to the appellant to raise this issue.

¶15

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.4.2018 Junaid

¶17

(Dilip Gupta,J)

¶18

(Neeraj Tiwari,J)

Sumat Pal Kashyap v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumat Pal Kashyap v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarnail Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Rajit Ram Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Sri Rama Shankar Gaur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishwanath Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Majumdar Vs Cantonment Board Office and 8 Others

Pushpendra Kumar AND13 Others Vs Staff Selection Commission and 2 Others