JUDGMENT
G.R. Majithia and S.K. Jain, JJ.
1. This petition is directed against the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab Chandigarh (hereinafter the Registrar) dated January 13, 1993, reversing the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amritsar dated February 4, 1992 passed in petition under Rule 20 for the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Employees Service Rules, 1986 and remitting the case to him to find out whether resolution dated September 12, 1991, by which the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the Khaira Cooperative Agriculture. Service Society Limited, Khaira District Amritsar (for short, the Society) was validly passed, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Gurmukh Singh filed a petition under Rule 20 of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Employees Service Rules, 1986 (for short, the Rules) before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, on September 23, 1991, challenging the appointment of Shri Satnam Singh as Secretary of the Society. The Registrar transferred the petition to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amritsar for disposal. The Deputy Registrar found that Shri Satnam Singh had been validly appointed as a Secretary of the Society vide resolution dated September 12, 1991. He rejected the resolution passed by the managing committee of the Society dated October 10, 1991 vide which Shri Gurmukh Singh was promoted as Secretary of the Society. Aggrieved against the decision of the Deputy Registrar, Shri Gurmukh Singh assailed the same through a petition under Section 3(4) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) before the Registrar. The Registrar found that the Deputy Registrar had not arrived at the conclusion that the resolution dated September 12, 1991, by which the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the Society was passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed. He accordingly set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar dated February 4, 1992 and remitted the case to him for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the order. Sh. Satnam Singh, aggrieved against the order of the Registrar, has approached this Court through this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the order of the Registrar on merits. His only submission is that petition under Section 3(4) of the Act against the order of the Deputy Registrar passed on a petition filed under Rule 20 of the Rules was not maintainable. He submits that the Deputy Registrar was conferred with the powers of the Registrar under the Rules and the order passed by him could not be revised by the Registrar.
4. Section 85 of the Act postulates that the State Government can make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act for any co-operative society or class of such societies. Clause (xxxviii) of sub-section (2) of Section 85 says that the Rules can be framed laying down qualifications for members of the committee and employees of a society or class of societies and the conditions of service subject to which persons may be employed by societies. In the light of this provision, the Rules were framed by the Registrar and were sent to various societies for adoption by the Managing Committee/Administrators of the Primary Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies. In the instant case, the Society adopted the Rules. These Rules provide for qualifications and emoluments payable to persons employed against various posts mentioned under Rule 6 of the Rules. Rule 15 provides that if any employee is aggrieved against any order passed by the Managing Committee of the society imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 14, he could challenge the same in appeal before the Deputy Registrar within thirty days of the date of order. Rule 20 says that if any doubt arises regarding the interpretation or application of the Rules, the matter shall be referred to the Registrar whose decision shall be final, binding and conclusive. Rule 20 does not provide for a revision against the order of resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the society. In the present case, Sh. Gurmukh Singh assailed the validity of a resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the Society on the ground that it was not passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed. He was also asserting that the order by which he was promoted as Secretary of the Society had been validly passed by the Managing Committee. It appears that there was party faction in the Managing Committee of the Society. One faction had been passing one set of orders and the other different set of orders. This is apparent when the resolution was passed by the Managing Committee of the Society appointing the petitioner as Secretary and prior to that resolution, another resolution had been passed promoting Shri Gurmukh Singh as Secretary of the Society. Revision under Rule 20 of the Rules was not maintainable. Only an appeal under Rule 15 of the Rules was maintainable against the penalties imposed under Rule 14 of the Rules. In the instant case, no such penalty was imposed under Rule 14 of the Rules and as such, no appeal was competent. Resort could not be made to Rule 20 of the Rules, which only deals with doubt which arises regarding interpretation and application of these Rules. There was no doubt about the interpretation of the Rules and in fact none was pointed out by any of the parties to the revisional authority. The alleged revision petition at the instance of Shri Gurmukh Singh before the Deputy Registrar was not maintainable in law.
5. Section 3 of the Act says that the Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the State of Punjab. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 says that the Government may appoint such number of Additional Registrars, Joint Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Assistant Registrars and other persons with such designation as it may think fit, to assist the Registrar. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 says that the Government may, by general or special order, confer on any person appointed under sub-section (2), all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act. Sub-section (4) of the Section 3 says that every person appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall exercise his powers subject to the general superintendence and control of the Registrar. The Deputy Registrar, if he was exercising the powers of the Registrar for dealing with the appeal under Rule 15 of the Rules, was subject to the general superintendence and control of the Registrar under whose control he was working. Any other passed by a Deputy Registrar on whom special powers have been conferred exercises his jurisdiction subject to the general superintendence and control of the Registrar. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar on a petition alleged to have been filed under Rule 20 of the Rules was subject to the general superintendence of the Registrar. The Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Rule 20 of the Rules. He assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in him and had illegally exercised the same. The Registrar was well within his right to reverse the same in exercise of the powers under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act.
6. Accordingly we hold that the petition under Rule 20 of the Rules was not maintainable. The order dated February 4, 1992 was passed by the Deputy Registrar on a petition which was forwarded to him for disposal by the Registrar. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar was subject to scrutiny under sub-section (4) of Section 3. The Registrar correctly exercised his jurisdiction, while setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and remanding the case to him for a fresh decision. We make it clear that the Deputy Registrar was dealing with the petition forwarded to him by the Registrar and he has no jurisdiction to entertain any petition under Rule 20 of the Rules.
7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.