Allowed

Rayala Nageswara Rao, v. The District Co.operative Officer

Telangana HC2 Nov 2004WP/12773/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of a clerk's services. The Court held that the termination order issued by the Society under directions from Cooperative Officers without stated reasons was illegal, arbitrary, and violated constitutional rights and the specific Co-operative Societies Act. The writ of certiorari was issued to quash the termination notice.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued to call for records, quash the termination notice dated 10.7.2004, and direct respondents to regularize the petitioner's services with consequential benefits.

Rayala Nageswara Rao, Vs The District Co.operative… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 12773 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rayala Nageswara Rao, s/o Venkateswarlu,aged 40 years, Working as Clerk in Primary Agricutural Co.operative Society, Penugolanu, Gampalagudem Mandalam, Krishna District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Co.operative Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam.

¶12

2 The Divisional Co-operative Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

¶13

3 The Deputy Registrar of Co.operative Societies, Nuzvid, Krishna

¶14

District.

¶15

4 The Chair Person, Primary Agrl.Co.operative Society, Penugolanu, Gopalagudem Mandalam, Krishna District.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for records Notice dated10-7-2004 passed by the 4th respondent herein is illegal, improper, and unjust and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and liable to be quashed and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularise the petitioner's services with all consequential benefits as Clerk.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.Y.ANUPAMA DEVI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: None appeared.

¶20

The Court made the following :

¶21

O R D E R :

¶22

The petitioner is an employee of the 4^th respondent-Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Penugolanu. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the place of one Narasimha Rao who was terminated by resolution dated 02-07-1994 passed by the 4^th respondent-Society and the petitioner joined as Clerk in the 4^th respondent’s society on 04-07-1994. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner is in conformity with Section 116-C of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and in the approved vacant post only the petitioner was appointed. But, the services of the petitioner were terminated pursuant to the directions issued by the Co-operative Officers from 21.07.2004. The petitioner questions the said termination notice, dated 10.7.2004 issued by the 4^th respondent-Society, dated 10.7.2004.

¶23

2. A perusal of the said notice discloses that as per the directions of the Cooperative Officers of Andhra Pradesh, the 4^th respondent-Society removed the petitioner from service. It is not an independent exercise made by the Society in removing the petitioner from service under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, but on the

¶24

directions of the Co-operative Officers only, the said notice has been issued to the petitioner without disclosing any reasons and without any justification whatsoever. The 4^th respondent-Society cannot remove its employees based on the directions of the Cooperative Officers, as the said direction is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 116-C of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.

¶25

3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. It is open for the 4^th respondent to pass appropriate orders in conformity with

¶26

the provisions of Section 116-C of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. No costs.

¶27

V. ESWARAIAH, J

¶28

Dated:02-11-2004.

¶29

ccm/shr

¶30

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

¶31

Witness the Hon’ble Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Tuesday, the Second day of November, Two thousand and four.

¶32

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶33

Dated:02.11.2004,

¶34

Ccm

¶35

To:

¶36

1 The District Co.operative Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 The Divisional Co-operative Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

¶37

3 The Deputy Registrar of Co.operative Societies, Nuzvid, Krishna

¶38

District.

¶39

4 The Chair-Person, Primary Agrl.Co.operative Society, Penugolanu,

¶40

Gopalagudem Mandalam, Krishna District.

¶41

5 2 CCs to the G.P. for Cooperation, High Court Buildings,

¶42

A.P.Hyderabad (OUT)

¶43

6. 2 CD Copies.

Rayala Nageswara Rao, v. The District Co.operative Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayala Nageswara Rao, v. The District Co.operative Officer

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

B. Bhaghavan Singh, Vs The Regional Manager

S.Srinivas and Anr. Vs Northern Power Dist.Comp.a.P.Ltd.and 2 Ors.

Allada Srinivas Rao. Vs the Regional Joint Dir.Serculture DEPTAND2

Kurakaula Krishna Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Parandham Kumar S/o. P.Ramaswamy Vs the Deputy General Manager (Personel - Corporate)

P.Venkateshwara Sarma, Vs Osmania University