( 2025:HHC:5147 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6064/2024 Decided on: 07.03.2025 Jyoti …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 & 5 proceeded ex parte. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Respondent No.4-Society issued a notice inviting applications from desirous candidates for the post of Secretary. The applications could be submitted w.e.f 10.04.2023 to 25.04.2023. Petitioner alongwith others applied for the post in question. Interviews were held on 31.08.2023 by a duly constituted selection committee, which also included nominee of respondent No.3-the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Result was declared on 31.08.2023. Petitioner was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:5147 ) declared selected for the post of Secretary. She joined as such on 02.09.2023. 2. Respondent No.5 filed an appeal under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (the Act in short), before respondent No.3, assailing the entire selection process as also the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Secretary. The appeal was allowed on 30.05.2024 by respondent No.3 holding that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.5 were entitled to hold the post of Secretary in respondent No.4-Society. Respondent No.4- Society was directed to initiate a fresh selection process for appointment of the Secretary. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 30.05.2024 passed by respondent No.3, petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 3. During the proceedings in this writ petition, learned Additional Advocate General placed on record office instructions dated 19.10.2024 from the Registrar Cooperative Societies to the effect that respondents No.1 to 3 do not intend to file any reply to the writ petition. Respondents No.4 & 5 despite being served, have chosen not to contest the writ petition, hence they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 05.12.2024. Petitioner is presently continuing as Secretary of respondent No.4 pursuant to the interim order passed in her favour on 01.07.2024. 3 ( 2025:HHC:5147 ) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 under Section 93 of the Act, was not maintainable before respondent No.3, hence the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 in that appeal deserves to be quashed and set aside. Certain other grounds have also been taken for assailing the order dated 30.05.2024. 5. Section 93 of the Act reads as under:- “93. Appeal.- An appeal shall lie under this section against,- (a) an order of the Registrar made under sub-section (4) of section 8 refusing to register a society; (b) an order of the Registrar made under sub-section (4) of section 11 refusing to register an amendment of the bye- laws of a society; (c) a decision of a society refusing to admit any person as a member of the society who is otherwise duly qualified for membership under the bye-laws of the society; (d) a decision of a society expelling any of its members; (e) an order of the Registrar removing the committee of a cooperative society under section 37; (f) an order made by the Registrar under section 68 apportioning the cost of the enquiry held under section 67 or an inspection made under 66; (g) any order of surcharge under section 69; (h) any decision or award made under section 73; (i) an order made by the Registrar under section 78 directing the winding up of co-operative society; (j) any order made by the liquidator of a society in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 80; (k) any order made under section 74; (1) an order of the Registrar made under sub-section (2) of Section 11)-A; or (m) an order of the Registrar made under sub-section (1) of Section 14-A.] (2) An appeal against any decision or order under sub-section (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date of decision or order,- (a) if the decision or order was made by the Assistant Registrar or the Deputy Registrar, to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar as may be authorised by him in this behalf; or (b) if the decision or order was made by the Joint Registrar, the Additional Registrar or the Registrar, to the Government; or (c) if the decision or order was made by any other person, to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, 4 ( 2025:HHC:5147 ) Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar as may be authorised by him in this behalf: and (3) No appeal shall lie under this section from any decision or order made by any authority in appeal. No order except those mentioned under this section, are appealable under this Act. The limitation period for preferring an appeal for all types of orders is 60 days from the date of issue.” From a perusal of the above provision, it is manifestly clear that the grievance against the selection process and appointment made thereunder does not fall within the preview of provision of appeal under Section 93 of the Act. Hence, respondent No.3 was not competent to entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits. Impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction. For that reason alone, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of. Order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set aside. In view of this, the other grounds taken by the petitioner need not to be gone into. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 07th March, 2025(rohit)