TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections, would come into effect as on the date notified in the Gazette. Though the question referred to us for decision is whether Sections 28(1), 28(3-b) and 33-A as amended by Act 28 of 1991 have come into force or were ever notified bringing them into force, it is the admitted case before us that no notification as contemplated by Section 1 (2) of Act 28 of 1991 was issued bringing into force those provisions. Of course, counsel for the petitioner argued that by certain other orders issued, it must be taken that the provisions have been brought into force. But that is a different argument. We are observing that there is no notification under Section 1(2) of Act 28 of 1991 bringing into force the concerned amended Sections of the Parent Act. 2. Though the reference before us arises out of a proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the question was argued from a larger perspective in view of the reference made to the Full Bench on a wider perspective. Strictly, in an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court is not concerned with the correctness of the decision in respect of which the complaint is made, but whether the direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for this Court to correct itself if it had made an error which was apparent on the face of the record. Prima facie, it is seen that this Court has proceeded as if an amended provision had come into force, whereas it had in fact not and the difference between the two positions is so significant that we would be failing in our duty if we do not exercise our suo motu power to review the earlier judgment itself. In that perspective, we gave notice of our intention to consider the question of review to learned counsel for the petitioner and giving him time, adjourned the proceedings for hearing the entire matter and not merely the one referred to us for decision. Subsequently, counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the society and the Additional Government Advocate were heard not only on the question referred to us but also on the question posed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and from the angle whether the judgment of this Court therein suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record which justified our reviewing that judgment itself. We thus re-heard the whole matter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a written submission dated 26.8.2002 enclosing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nagement of the society was to vest with the committee constituted in accordance with the Rules and its Bye-Laws and the Committee so constituted was to exercise such power and perform such duties as conferred or imposed by the Act. Under Section 33-A of the Act the Registrar was to classify the societies into different classes and was to fix the number and designation of the employees to be employed in different classes of societies and to make Rules regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of such employees. Under the amended Section 33-A (which was not brought into force) the power to fix the number and designation of the employees vested with the Committee of the Society, subject of course to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Bye-Laws of the Society and the Committee had also the power to determine the qualification criteria, recruitment procedure, remuneration payable, conditions of service and other related matters for a particular category. Obviously, if the amended provision had applied, the Society could have appointed the petitioner as an accountant by designating the qualification he possessed as sufficient. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oning indicates that it was inclined to that view. But, it had thought that it would be more appropriate if the matter is referred to a Full Bench. The referred question has admittedly to be answered in the negative. 7. The original decision by this Court was rendered on the basis that a statutory provision has come into effect when as a matter of fact, it had not. Only if the amended provision had come into force, a Managing Committee could prescribe the qualification and thereafter decide the question of promoting a qualified or unqualified person to the post of an Accountant. But under the unamended provision, the Managing Committee had no such power and the exercise of power was controlled by the Registrar who could categorise the society and determine the posts it should or could have and ensure that appointments and promotions are made consistent with the posts available and the qualifications prescribed. In the case on hand therefore, the appointment of the petitioner as an Accountant was rightly disapproved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies since the petitioner admittedly did not possess a Degree in Commerce or an Art subject. In other words, he did not possess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. 9. The second writ petition was filed challenging the direction of the Chief Executive of the Society asking the petitioner to perform the duties of an Assistant Accountant. Once it is found that the petitioner was only entitled to hold the post of an Assistant Accountant, it goes without saying that the direction to him to perform the duties of Assistant Accountant would be legal and justified. Therefore, the position emerging is that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in either of the original petitions. Both are liable to be dismissed. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 10. There cannot be any doubt about the position that whether the judgment be right or wrong, when a direction is issued by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the authority to whom such a direction is issued is bound to obey that direction. Here, there was also an attempt to challenge that direction in an appeal before the Supreme Court which did not succeed. In that context, there is force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the authority concerned not obeying the direction of this Court must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
