Court denies promotion claim of a bank employee, citing lack of maintainability under Article 12.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name:

Rita Priyadarsini Mohanty vs. State of Odisha and others (High Court of Orissa)

W.P.(C) No. 6100 of 2023

Date: 21st October 2024

Key Takeaways

• The court emphasized that not all cooperative banks are considered “State” under Article 12, which limits the scope of judicial review.
• The decision reinforces the principle that promotion claims must be based on statutory rights and the existence of a public law element.
• The ruling highlights the importance of demonstrating the state’s pervasive control over a cooperative society to establish its status as an instrumentality of the state.

Issue

Is the Urban Cooperative Bank considered a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, making the writ petition for promotion maintainable?

Facts

• Rita Priyadarsini Mohanty, aged 58, was employed as a Senior Assistant at the Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. in Cuttack.
• She filed a writ petition seeking promotion to Assistant Manager, claiming that her juniors were promoted while she was overlooked.
• Previous orders from the court directed the bank to consider her representation regarding promotion, but the bank did not comply, leading to this petition.

Arguments

• Petitioner’s Argument: Mohanty argued that she was unfairly superseded by juniors and sought a judicial order for her promotion based on her seniority and the right to be considered for promotion.
• Respondent’s Argument: The bank contended that it did not fall under the definition of “State” as per Article 12, and thus the writ petition was not maintainable. They cited Section 68 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962, which mandates that disputes related to cooperative societies must be referred to the Registrar.

Key Legal Precedents

• Article 12 of the Constitution of India: Defines “State” to include the government and all local authorities, but the court clarified that not all cooperative societies qualify as such.
• S.S. Rana vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies (2006) 11 SCC 634: This case established that a cooperative society must demonstrate deep and pervasive control by the state to be considered an instrumentality of the state.
• General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Satrughan Nishad (2003) 8 SCC 639: This case reiterated that a cooperative society must have significant state control to be amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Judgment

The court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable as the Urban Cooperative Bank did not qualify as a “State” under Article 12. The court emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of the state’s pervasive control over the bank. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and Mohanty was advised to seek remedies under general law rather than through a writ petition.

FAQs

1. What does it mean for a cooperative bank to be considered a “State”?

• A cooperative bank must demonstrate significant control by the state in its operations to be classified as a “State” under Article 12, which allows for judicial review.

2. Can I file a writ petition against a cooperative society?

• Yes, but only if the society is deemed an instrumentality of the state, which requires evidence of deep and pervasive state control.

3. What should I do if my promotion is denied?

• If you believe your promotion was unjustly denied, you may need to explore other legal remedies outside of a writ petition, as the court may not have jurisdiction over your case.

4. What are the implications of this judgment?

• This judgment clarifies the limitations of judicial review concerning cooperative societies and emphasizes the need for clear evidence of state control for such cases to be heard in court.