The Allahabad High Court has held that an appointing authority cannot cancel appointments merely on the direction of the State Government, without applying its own mind.

It set aside the termination of Assistant Managers of the U.P. Cooperative Bank whose appointments were cancelled in 2019 after the Principal Secretary, Cooperative, directed that they be cancelled.

Justice Rajeev Singh held,

“Therefore, this Court is of the view that impugned termination orders have been passed by the Appointing Authority only on the direction of the Principal Secretary of the concerned department. The resolution was passed by the Managing Committee, then the formal order was passed by the Managing Director. However, there is no application of mind of the Managing Committee as well as the Managing Director while passing the impugned orders.”

Recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager in the U.P. Cooperative Bank was advertised on 26.06.2015, the qualification then being a graduate degree in Commerce, Economics, Mathematics or Statistics with 50% marks, or an M.B.A./P.G.D.M. in Banking and Finance. Before the last date for applying, it was widened to graduation in any discipline with 50% marks, approved by the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, Co-operative Societies on 16.07.2015.

The petitioners were declared successful on 15.10.2015 and joined in February 2016, their appointment letters being subject to the outcome of writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates.

On a complaint by an N.G.O., an inquiry was ordered in October 2018. Its report found that the qualification had been reduced by conspiracy between officers of the Bank and that appointment letters had been issued hastily. The Principal Secretary, Cooperative, then wrote on 27.04.2019 and 24.05.2019 directing cancellation of the appointments of 50 Assistant Managers. The Board of Directors resolved accordingly on 30.05.2019 and the terminations followed on 07.06.2019, with one month's salary in lieu.

Petitioners submitted that though the qualification had been changed by the then Commissioner-cum-Registrar, no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him, no charge sheet filed in the criminal case, and no sanction obtained.

Relying on M.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited, Bhopal Vs. Nanuram Yadav and others, they argued that an employee cannot be terminated on the recommendation of a higher authority based on an inquiry report, and their appointments had been cancelled only on the dictate of the State Government.

Respondents submitted that the rules had been changed at the behest of the then Managing Directors to accommodate their associates and that relatives of two members of the Examination Committee and Interview Board were among those appointed. It was also argued that interpolation in O.M.R. sheets had been found, while not disputing that no petitioner had been charge-sheeted.

The Court observed that the qualification had been altered by the Registrar-cum-Commissioner, who was empowered to do so under the Act, and the selection had thereafter been completed. Nothing was alleged against the petitioners themselves, noted the Court.

“There is no whisper in the order of Principal Secretary, Cooperative, about the illegal act of the petitioners.”

Examining the correspondence between the State Government and the appointing authority, the Court held that the terminations rested entirely on the two letters of the Principal Secretary.

It relied on Nanuram Yadav, where the Supreme Court held that an employee cannot be terminated merely on the recommendation of any authority absent proper application of mind.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed. The petitioners were permitted to resume their duties, with the period from the date of termination till the date of judgment to be treated as 'no work no pay'.

Case Title: Manish Kumar and 25 Ors. vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Lucknow and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 655

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 655

Click Here To Read/Download Order