Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Promotion Dispute Against Co-operative Bank — Bank Not 'State' Under Article 12. Employee's Claim for Promotion to Deputy Chief Officer Fails as Technical Cadre Employee Not Entitled to Consideration for General Cadre Post.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 77
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sudhir Chatarpal Kedar, a Civil Engineer, was appointed as Engineer/Officer Grade-I in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank in July 1990 and confirmed in 1991. In 1994, he claimed promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Officer, alleging that juniors were considered for the post, violating equality principles. He filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1530 of 1994 seeking a declaration and direction for consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit. The District Court allowed the appeal, holding in favour of the plaintiff. The bank filed a second appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of whether the bank is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The court noted that the bank is a co-operative society and not a 'State', and that the appellant, being in the technical cadre, was not entitled to consideration for a general cadre post. The court dismissed the second appeal, setting aside the District Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's dismissal.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Definition of 'State' - Article 12 of the Constitution of India - Co-operative Bank - The issue was whether the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank is a 'State' under Article 12. The court held that the bank, being a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, is not a 'State' and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-2)

B) Service Law - Promotion - Technical Cadre - The appellant, a Civil Engineer in the technical cadre, claimed promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Officer, which belonged to the general cadre. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to be considered for a post in a different cadre, and the bank had not acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and whether the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Officer.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Second appeal allowed; judgment of District Court set aside; judgment of trial court dismissing suit restored.

Law Points

  • Article 12 of the Constitution of India
  • definition of 'State'
  • co-operative bank not a State
  • promotion in technical cadre
  • maintainability of civil suit against co-operative society
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 117

Second Appeal No. 290 of 2001

2005-12-12

R.C. Chavan, J.

Shri R.S. Srivastava for appellant, Shri V.G. Wankhade for respondents

Shri Sudhir S/o. Chatarpal Kedar

Chairman, Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against judgment of District Court allowing plaintiff's claim for promotion.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought declaration of entitlement to be considered for promotion to Deputy Chief Officer and direction to consider him.

Filing Reason

Appellant claimed he was discriminated against as juniors were considered for promotion while he was not.

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed suit; District Court allowed appeal in favour of plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank is a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India? Whether the appellant was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Officer?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the bank is a State and that he was discriminated against in promotion. Respondent bank argued that it is a co-operative society, not a State, and that the appellant was in a technical cadre not entitled to the general cadre post.

Ratio Decidendi

A co-operative bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. An employee in a technical cadre is not entitled to be considered for promotion to a post in a different cadre.

Judgment Excerpts

Whether Respondent No.1 Bank is a state within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India ? The appellant / original plaintiff Sunil Chatarpal Kedar is a Civil Engineer who was appointed as Engineer /Officer Grade-I in the respondent Bank in July, 1990 and was confirmed in 1991.

Procedural History

Appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1530 of 1994 before Civil Judge Jr.Dn. at Nagpur, which was dismissed. He appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal. The bank then filed Second Appeal No. 290 of 2001 before the Bombay High Court, which was admitted on 19.09.2005 and decided on 12.12.2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 12
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Promotion Dispute Against Co-operative Bank — Bank Not 'State' Under Article 12. Employee's Claim for Promotion to Deputy Chief Officer Fails as Technical Cadre Employee Not Entitled to Consideration for...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Union of India's Petition in Customs Seizure Case — Burden of Proof Under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 Not Discharged. The Court held that the Department failed to prove that seized ball bearings were smuggled goods,...