WP/3810/1999 of D.SELVAM Vs 1.DY.REGR.OF COOP.SOCIETIES, on 28 November 2002

:ORDER

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for calling for theentire records of the 1st respondent's proceedings made in Na.Ka. No.1612/95Kuvisa dated 25.12.1998, quash the same and for direction to the respondent toapprove the Petitioner's Post as Secretary in the 2nd Respondent Bank.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in Tamil Nadu CivilSupplies and Consumer Corporation's Fair Price shop in 1979. Subsequently,the fair price shops were taken over by different Co-operative Societies andaccordingly the petitioner was working as Salesman in Kokkaladi PrimaryAgriculture Cooperative Bank Ltd., from 16.11.1989. Subsequently, he waspromoted as a clerk. It is stated that thereafter, he was sent on deputationto Singalanthi Primary Agriculture Cooperative Bank Ltd. While he was soworking, the Secretary of the said Singalanthi Primary Agriculture CooperativeBank Ltd., the second respondent expired and the petitioner was made asincharge Secretary. At this stage, an order Na.Ka.No.1612/Kuvisa dated25.12.98 was passed reverting the petitioner to his parent post in KokkaladiPrimary Agriculture Cooperative Bank Ltd. Aggrieved by the said order, thepetitioner had filed W.P.No.18553/96. The said writ petition was dismissed byorder dated 11.12.96 holding that the petitioner had no right to continue inthe subsequent post and there was no infirmity in the order of reversion.After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, it appears a resolution waspassed by the petitioner's parent bank declaring that they had no objection ifthe services of the petitioner are regularised in the present secondrespondent bank to which the petitioner had been deputed. The petitioner hadmade several representations to the second respondent Bank and it appears thatthe second respondent also passed a resolution on 21.11.97 recommending thatthe petitioner may be absorbed under the second respondent bank. However,subsequently, by order dated 25.12.98, the second respondent has been directedto relieve the petitioner and to send the petitioner back to his parent banknamely Kokkaladi Primary Agriculture Cooperative Bank Limited. This order hasbeen challenged in the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has raised apreliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition onthe ground that the petitioner has suppressed about the dismissal of theearlier writ petition. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of thepresent writ petition would show that there is no whisper about the earlierorder passed by this Court in W.P.No.18553 /96.

5. Law is well settled that a person who seeks equitable jurisdictionof the High Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India is requiredto come to the Court with clean hands and is not entitled to suppress anymaterial particular.

Conclusion

6. In the present case, it appears that the order of reversion of thepetitioner to his parent bank which had been passed in the year 1996 had beensubsequently challenged and the writ petition has been dismissed. It is, ofcourse true that after dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, the parentbank had passed a resolution stating that it has got no objection if the petitioner is regularly absorbed under the present second respondent bank andthere has been a similar resolution by the second respondent bank. Yet, itwas the duty of the petitioner to bring all facts to the notice of the Courtby disclosing about the dismissal of the earlier W.P.No.18553/1996 which hadbeen filed for the very same purpose. This suppression of material fact onthe part of the bank is sufficient to refuse the relief to the petitioner.But, even if the aforesaid ground for dismissal of the writ petitioner isignored, on merit also, I do not find any thing to interfere with the impugnedorder. Admittedly, the petitioner had been absorbed in Kokkaladi PrimaryAgricultural Co-operative Bank Limited and he had come to the present secondrespondent bank only on deputation for a period of three years. Even thoughthe order of reversion is confirmed by this Court, the subsequent order whichhas been passed appears to be a consequential order. It is true that theparent bank had passed a resolution that it has no objection if the petitioneris regularly absorbed under the second respondent bank and the secondrespondent has also passed a similar resolution. However, since suchresolution has not been accepted the petitioner cannot claim that he has gotright.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the presentimpugned order is an order of reversion and the petitioner would be revertedfrom the post of Secretary to that of clerk. Even this submission does notappear to be justified in view of the fact that the petitioner was neverappointed as Secretary on regular basis, but he was allowed to remain incharge as Secretary in view of the demise of the earlier Secretary. It cannotbe stated that the present order amounts to an order of reversion.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied uponrule 149 (2) proviso (ii) and contended that the petitioner should be allowedto continue in the present second respondent bank.

9. On going through the aforesaid provision, I do not find any thingwhich is applicable to the case of the petitioner. Rule 149 (2) proviso (ii)relates to absorption of surplus employees for the Cooperative society. By nostretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner is surplus. Thereis no material that the petitioner had been found to be surplus employee ofthe parent bank. Therefore, the aforesaid proviso is not applicable.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writpetition and the same is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.5447/1999 and W.P.M.P.No.32360/2001 are disposed of.

11. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is found to be asurplus employee in the parent bank, namely, Kokkaladi Primary AgricultureCo-operative Bank Ltd., appropriate steps shall be taken by the respondentNo.1 to absorb the petitioner in another branch of the bank. It is also madeclear if the petitioner is eligible to be considered for being appointed asSecretary, the case of the petitioner should be considered in accordance withlaw.

Index: YesInternet: Yes

salTo1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties, Kasukarar StreetMannargudiTiruvarur District

2. The PresidentZ.C.66 Singalanthi Primary AgricultureCooperative Bank Ltd.,Muthupettai RoadThiruthuraipoondi PostTiruvarur District

3. The Special Officer-C-65Kokkaladi PrimaryAgriculture Co-operative BankKokkalady, Kamani 614 711Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk

4. Z.C.66, Singalanthi Primary AgricultureCooperative Bank Limited,Thiruthuraipoondi 614 713