Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a promotion list for the post of Additional Manager in the District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Raipur, governed by the Chhattisgarh District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service (Employment, Terms and their Working Conditions) Rules, 1982, framed under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The appellant, S. P. Chandrakar, and respondent no. 5, Kishor Bagh, were both Class-I officers. A gradation list prepared in 2005-06 omitted the appellant, who was later included after a correction application, placing him above respondent no. 5 in seniority. Respondent no. 5 challenged the appellant's placement, contending that the appellant's original appointment was to a technical post (Assistant Engineer), while the Additional Manager post was non-technical/administrative, and Rule 5(3)(a) of the 1982 Rules barred appointment or absorption of technical employees into posts with different work. In 2010, technical employees sought deletion of this bar, and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a notification on 4.7.2005 deleting Rule 5(3)(a), (b), and (c) under Section 55(1). Subsequently, by a communication dated 13.08.2010, the Additional Registrar informed all District Cooperative Central Banks that Rule 5(3)(a) was deleted. Despite respondent no. 5's objections, the appellant was promoted to Additional Manager on 30.12.2010. Respondent no. 5 filed WPS No. 1799 of 2011 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, and the learned Single Judge, by order dated 31.07.2023, quashed the promotion, finding that no valid amendment order was placed on record and that the communication was a mere executive instruction that could not override statutory rules. The Division Bench, in Writ Appeal No. 338 of 2023, affirmed this view on 02.02.2024, relying on Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh and Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the deletion of Rule 5(3)(a) was validly effected and whether the appellant's promotion was legal. The appellant contended that the Registrar had the power to delete the rule, and the communication by the Additional Registrar, marked 'ordered by Registrar', was a valid exercise of that power. The Court examined Section 55(1) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which empowers the Registrar to frame rules governing terms and conditions of employment, and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that the power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws includes the power to amend, vary, or rescind them. The Court held that the Registrar's power to frame rules inherently includes the power to delete them, and the notification dated 4.7.2005 was a valid exercise of that power. Regarding the communication by the Additional Registrar, the Court noted that the Act permits appointment of Additional Registrars to assist the Registrar and that there is no bar on delegation of functions. The communication explicitly stated it was 'ordered by Registrar', and the State did not dispute that the amendment was made under the Registrar's orders. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's concurrent findings and restored the appellant's promotion, holding that the amendment was valid and the promotion based on it was legal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotions - Validity of amendment to service rules - Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Section 55(1); General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 21 - The dispute involved promotion from a technical post to an administrative post, which was barred under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Chhattisgarh District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service Rules, 1982 before its deletion. The Registrar issued a notification deleting the rule, and later an Additional Registrar communicated the deletion. The High Court set aside the promotion, holding that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules and that no proper amendment order was placed on record. The Supreme Court held that the Registrar had power under Section 55(1) to frame rules and, by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, that power includes the power to amend or delete rules. The communication by the Additional Registrar, marked 'ordered by Registrar', was a valid exercise of power, and the State did not dispute that the amendment was made under the Registrar's orders. The promotion based on the deleted rule was therefore valid. Held that the concurrent findings of the High Court were erroneous, and the promotion order was restored. (Paras 2-10) B) Administrative Law - Delegation of powers - Exercise of statutory power by delegate - Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, Section 55(1) - The High Court questioned whether the Additional Registrar had authority to issue the amendment communication. The Supreme Court held that the Act provides for appointment of Additional Registrars to assist the Registrar, and there is no bar on delegation of functions. Since the communication explicitly stated it was ordered by the Registrar, it constituted a valid exercise of power. Held that the amendment was properly effected and the promotion was sustainable. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to Rule 5(3)(a) of the 1982 Service Rules was validly made by the Registrar/Additional Registrar, and consequently whether the appellant's promotion was legal.
Final Decision
Civil appeal allowed; judgments and orders of the High Court set aside; appellant's promotion to the post of Additional Manager upheld.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Registrar's power under Section 55(1) includes power to amend rules
- Section 21 of General Clauses Act applies
- executive instructions cannot override statutory rules but validly made rules have statutory force
- delegation of power to Additional Registrar is permissible
