Sheo Lal Maurya vs The Secretary District Administrative Committee, Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Others

The Petitioner was a Sachiv of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society and his services have been terminated by the District Administrative Committee. His grievance is that he was selected by the Regional Administrative Committee under Rule 25 of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Central Service Rules, and as such his services could not be terminated by the District Administrative Committee. A reading of Rule 13 with Rule 25 shows that while the recruitment is centralised at the Regional level, and as such the District Administrative Committee cannot make selection to the post of Sachiv on their own, the power of appointment has been vested in the District Administrative Committee. Selection is different from appointment. The appointment order annexure itself brings out this distinction clearly. The appointment of the Petitioner was made by the District Administrative Committee on his selection being made by the Regional Administrative Committee. As such it is not open to the Petitioner to contend that his appointing authority was the Regional Administrative Committee. As such the District Administrative Committee was competent to terminate his services. No other illegality has been pointed out in so far as the termination order is concerned.

There is thus no merit in the petition which is dismissed in limine. The earlier stay order stands discharged.