Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"It is well settled that bye-laws or resolutions cannot override statutory rules, and any action contrary to the Act or Rules is liable to be struck down. Any appointment made in violation of statutory rules is void ab initio," Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the General Body of a cooperative society, while being a supreme administrative organ, does not possess the authority to ratify appointments that bypass mandatory statutory eligibility criteria.

Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that when statutory rules prescribe specific qualifications and experience, they are binding and cannot be relaxed by any committee or body within the society.

The petitioner, Manjit Singh, was initially engaged as a peon and briefly served as a salesman before being reverted. Following a criminal conviction in 2010 under Sections 308 and 323 of the IPC, he was later appointed as the Secretary of the Khijrabad Multipurpose Cooperative Agricultural Service Society through a 2015 resolution. This appointment was challenged by a respondent on the grounds that the petitioner lacked the mandatory experience and suffered from statutory disqualifications due to his criminal record.

The primary questions before the court were whether a resolution appointing a Secretary is legally valid when it violates the mandatory experience requirements under the Service Rules, and whether the Deputy Registrar possesses the jurisdiction to set aside such a resolution under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The court also examined if the challenge was barred by the principles of res judicata following the dismissal of a prior civil suit.

Statutory Eligibility Criteria Are Mandatory And Binding

The Court emphasized that the appointment of employees in Primary Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies is strictly governed by the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997. Rule 6(1)(ii) specifically mandates three years of experience as a paid salesman for appointment to the post of Secretary. The bench noted that the petitioner only had four months of experience, rendering the foundation of the resolution factually and legally incorrect.

"Where statutory rules prescribe eligibility conditions, the same are binding and cannot be relaxed by the Managing Committee or even by the General Body. Any appointment made in violation of statutory rules is void ab initio."

General Body Cannot Override Statutory Framework

Addressing the petitioner's argument that the General Body is the final authority of the Society, the Court clarified that administrative supremacy does not equate to legal immunity. The bench noted that every decision taken by the General Body must conform to the parent Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A resolution that disregards statutory norms is a nullity and cannot be sustained under the guise of internal autonomy.

"While the General Body may be the supreme body in matters of administration, its decisions must conform to statutory provisions. It is well settled that bye-laws or resolutions cannot override statutory rules."

Criminal Conviction Acts As A Statutory Disqualification

The Court further highlighted that the petitioner’s conviction for a criminal offence posed an additional legal barrier. Under Rule 12(3) of the 1997 Rules and Rule 14 of the 1963 Rules, a person sentenced for an offence (not involving moral turpitude) incurs a disqualification for five years from the expiry of the sentence. The bench found that the Society had completely disregarded these statutory disqualifications while passing the appointment resolution.

"The resolution dated 16.02.2015 was passed without any consideration of these statutory disqualifications. Rule 12(3) of the 1997 Rules treats conviction for a criminal offence as misconduct."

Deputy Registrar Exercises Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Section 3

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court rejected the petitioner's plea that the Deputy Registrar could not hear an appeal against a resolution under Section 68 of the Act. The bench ruled that Section 3 of the Act confers general superintendence and supervisory control over cooperative societies upon the Registrar and their delegates. Therefore, even if a specific appellate provision is not invoked, the power to ensure compliance with the law remains with the statutory authorities.

"The legality of appointment of employees in cooperative societies is not beyond supervisory scrutiny, particularly when alleged to be contrary to statutory service rules. The Deputy Registrar was competent under the delegated statutory framework to examine whether the resolution was in conformity with the Act."

Dismissal Of Prior Civil Suit Triggers Res Judicata

The Court also observed that the petitioner had previously challenged the withdrawal of the resolution in a civil court, which resulted in the dismissal of his suit. Since that judgment had attained finality, the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC prevented the petitioner from re-agitating the same issue in writ proceedings. Justice Moudgil noted that the doctrine of finality of litigation must operate with full force.

"The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a respondent is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. The original court as well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct."

The High Court concluded that the petitioner's appointment was fundamentally illegal and void. It upheld the orders of the Deputy Registrar and the Joint Registrar, affirming that statutory service rules cannot be bypassed by cooperative societies. The writ petition was dismissed, with the court finding no jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings of the lower departmental authorities.

Date of Decision: 24 April 2026