Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
For further case-law, see under rules 6, 23 and 25. Provisions of section 66B are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Where the Legislature itself declares certain category of appointments to be void, nothing requires to be adjudicated, and principles of natural justice will have on application in case of cancellation of void appointments. Provisions of section 66B cannot be said to be arbitrary. Teja Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1992 (2) PLJR 56. An order of termination of service of Branch Managers of Primary Agriculture Co- operative Societies passed without instituting departmental proceedings on their alleged failure to achieve norms for recovery of Co-operative loans set by the Cooperative Department will be liable to be set aside on ground of being violative of principles of natural Justice. The mere service of show cause notice without intiating disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to fully satisfy the mandatory requirement of providing effective opportunity of defence against proposed order of termination. Kapileshwar Sharma vs. State of Bihar, 1993 (2) PLJR 552. In the face of the express bar provided under section 66B, it cannot be held that regular appointments could be made by a Co-operative Body registered under the Act without following the prescribed method and procedure or any form of selection merely because the "Selection Committee" had not been fully constituted. Teja Prasad vs. State of Bihar, 1992 (2) PLJR 568. A notification under section 66B(1) providing for constituting a Selection Authority and creating an embargo against making any appointment from any source other than the "Panel" prepared by the Selection Authority can be validly issued by the State Government. Any appointment made in contravention of the Notification will be void ab initio. ibid. It is only after the enactment of the 1989 Amendment Act (Act 5 of 1989) that certain Co-operative Bcdies such a Central Co-operative Bank became qualified to be treated' as "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution. Any appointment made prior to coming into force of the 1989 Amendment Act are no amenable to test on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution for validity of appointment. Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Registrar, 1995 (2) PLJR 397. 84] Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 [ Schedule Restrictions imposed by Registrar, Co-operative on co-operative Societies, requiring purchases of machinery to be made through Regional Agro Industries Development Co- operative Ltd. are justifiable when in public interest. George Kokkattumundayil vs. Joint Registrar, AIR 1996 Ker 26. Review.-Power of review has been given only to Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and is not vested in State Government under the Assam Act. C.B.K. Fishery Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. State of Assam, AIR 1996 Gau. 23. Section 66B--change in manner of payment of salary to Managers of PACs by · opening of specified account in every Central Co-op. Bank to which the PACs may be attached is with a view of improve the functioning of PACs and does not amount to altering the service conditions. Bihar Rajya Sahakarita Prabandak Sangh vs. State of Bihar, 2000(3) PLJR 322. Section 66B-State exercises pervasive control over co-operative societies and thus the co-operative societies virtually act as an extended arm of the State therefore, the State Government virtually controls the service conditions of the Managers of the PACs and their pay scale is also fixed by it---since their pay is fixed by the State Government and is at the subsistence level, the denial of protection from price rise by providing D.A. is violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Sangh vs. State of Bihar, 1999(3) PLJR 110. Section 66B-Managers of PACs, even though not State Government employees cannot be denied just and reasonable pay as a citizen of India-their pay having been fixed by the State Government and not an expert body like Pay Commission, denial of D.A. to them amounts to exposing them to the vagaries of the market unlike State Government employees who enjoy such protection---a welfare State wedded to the principle of social justice cannot be allowed to do it, it being unreasonable, unfair and unconstitutional--Managers of PACs are entitled for D.A. at par with State Government employees. ibid. · Section 66B read with Rule 33 of Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959- appointment of staff for Class Ill and Class IV posts by Vice-Chairman of Co-operative society any appointment made in Violation of Procedure prescribed for registered Societies by State Government Circular will be illegal. Anjani Kumar Singh vs. Manager, Jamui Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., 1994(2) PLJR 761.]