Orissa High Court Declines Writ Jurisdiction over Cooperative Appointment Dispute, Records ‘Petitioner Has Statutory Remedy’ and Finds ‘No Public Law Element Involved’
Safiya Malik
The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the appointment process for a Contractual Secretary in a cooperative society. Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, and that the dispute lacked the public law element necessary to attract writ jurisdiction. The Court recorded, “this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 67B and Section 68 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962.”
In addition, the Court concluded that the Kajalaipalli Service Cooperative Society Ltd. was not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and that the matter involved serious factual disputes requiring adjudication by the statutory tribunal under the Act. The Court dismissed the petition without costs.
The petitioner, Sujit Kumar Nayak, a graduate residing in Nayagarh District, filed a writ petition challenging a resolution dated May 12, 2017, passed by the Appointment Committee of the Kajalaipalli Service Cooperative Society Ltd. The resolution had ranked opposite party no. 7, Ranjan Kumar Sahoo, first in the merit list for appointment as Contractual Secretary, with the petitioner placed second.
The dispute arose from an advertisement issued on May 13, 2016, which invited applications for the post of Contractual Secretary. Four candidates applied, but only two, including the petitioner and opposite party no. 7, were shortlisted. The petitioner objected to the selection, alleging irregularities in awarding marks under specific qualification categories.
The petitioner contended that opposite party no. 7 was awarded 5 additional marks under “Other Qualification” for holding a Master of Financial Control (MFC) degree, which was not one of the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner filed a representation before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nayagarh Circle, which led to a re-evaluation by the Appointment Committee.
In the re-evaluation meeting on May 12, 2017, the Appointment Committee deducted 5 marks from opposite party no. 7, but also deducted 5 marks from the petitioner, initially awarded for “Knowledge in Computer Application.” The petitioner challenged this deduction, arguing that it lacked justification and deprived him of the top position.
Opposite party no. 7 submitted that he had produced a valid Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) certificate entitling him to marks under the “Computer Application” category. Respondents argued that the petitioner had not submitted a PGDCA certificate and that awarding him additional marks for computer application knowledge already incorporated in his degree was an inadvertent mistake rectified during the re-evaluation.
The State and other respondents, including the President and Secretary of the Kajalaipalli Service Cooperative Society Ltd., submitted affidavits confirming that the selection process adhered to the recruitment guidelines issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and that the matter fell within the society’s internal administration, governed by the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962.
Justice Murahari Sri Raman recorded that the dispute pertained to “a service-related issue within a cooperative society,” raising questions on whether such disputes fall within the purview of writ jurisdiction. The Court noted, “the issue raised involves factual disputes concerning the eligibility criteria and the marks awarded during the selection process, which are to be adjudicated by the appropriate forum as per the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962.”
The Court observed that the cooperative society functions as an autonomous entity regulated by its internal governance and is subject to the provisions of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act. It noted that disputes regarding appointments in cooperative societies are service-related contractual matters and do not necessarily involve public duties.
The Court examined whether the Kajalaipalli Service Cooperative Society Ltd. qualifies as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and applied the twin tests from Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111. It recorded that “there is no material to suggest that the activities of the society are under the deep and pervasive control of the State” and further noted that “the society cannot be considered as discharging public functions or public duties.”
Justice Raman referred to the Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2022) 7 SCC 438, stating that “private bodies governed by their own rules, even when performing regulatory functions, may not attract writ jurisdiction in the absence of public law obligations.”
The Court further observed, “in the present case, the appointment of a Contractual Secretary in a primary cooperative society does not involve public functions, and the society’s actions pertain to internal administrative decisions within a private framework.”
On the disputed marks and qualifications, the Court recorded that the petitioner’s claims involved “serious disputed questions of fact regarding the eligibility criteria, the certificates submitted, and the application of recruitment guidelines.” The Court emphasized that such matters are not suited for adjudication under Article 226, given the need for a detailed factual inquiry.
Justice Raman further noted, “this Court cannot act as an appellate authority over decisions of the Appointment Committee of a cooperative society unless mala fide, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions is established.”
The Court stated the statutory framework available under Section 67B and Section 68 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, which mandates that disputes concerning employment or service conditions in cooperative societies be referred to the Cooperative Tribunal or the Registrar.
The Bench also considered whether the cooperative society was discharging public functions sufficient to invoke public law remedies and concluded, “the dispute concerns the internal affairs of the society and is not amenable to the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.”
The Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. Justice Murahari Sri Raman recorded, “this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 67B and Section 68 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962.”
It was further recorded, “the matter is left open for the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the competent statutory forum in accordance with law.”
The Court noted that it made no findings on the merits of the selection process or the petitioner’s entitlement to the post and concluded that there was “no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: M/s. Amit Prasad Bose, R.K. Mahanta, S.K. Dwibedy
For Opposite Parties: Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, Additional Government Advocate, M/s. Shashi Bhusan Jena, Satyajit Behera, M/s. Abhijit Mishra, C.K. Sahoo, C. Das
Case Title: Sujit Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.15931 of 2017
Bench: Justice Murahari Sri Raman
[Read/Download order]
