Uttarakhand HC Division Bench Revives Terminated Employee's Writ After Finding Registrar's Statutory Order Was Challengeable

The Division Bench held that because the District Assistant Registrar exercised statutory powers under the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act to direct termination, the writ petition was maintainable and wrongly dismissed.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, on 12 June 2026 set aside a Single Judge's order that had dismissed a writ petition as not maintainable. The appellant, Sudhir Chaudhary, had been working as an Assistant in a primary cooperative society and was terminated after the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haridwar directed the society to cancel his appointment. The Single Judge dismissed the writ on the ground that a primary cooperative society is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Division Bench disagreed, holding that the challenge was directed at a statutory authority's order, not merely at the society's internal action, and the writ court had full jurisdiction to examine it.

The Appointment, the Inquiry, and the Termination

Chaudhary held the post of Assistant in Bahuudheshiya Chudiyala Sadhan Sehkari Samiti Limited, respondent no. 4. In July 2022, the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haridwar — respondent no. 3 — passed an order dated 20.07.2022 directing the society to cancel Chaudhary's appointment forthwith, fix responsibility on persons who had been instrumental in paying his salary, and report compliance.

The order followed a detailed inquiry conducted on the basis of a complaint about irregularities in the society's appointments. An Enquiry Committee found that Chaudhary's appointment had been made in breach of norms specified by the Registrar through a letter dated 02.09.2013 and was consequently illegal. Acting on those findings, respondent no. 3 issued the cancellation direction.

The society's Secretary then passed a consequential order dated 31.10.2022 terminating Chaudhary's services in compliance with the Registrar's direction. Chaudhary challenged both orders — the Registrar's direction of 20.07.2022 and the termination order of 31.10.2022 — by filing WPSS No. 2396 of 2022 before the Single Judge.

How the Single Judge Dismissed the Writ

The Single Judge decided WPSS No. 2396 of 2022 as part of a batch of writ petitions by an order dated 07.05.2026. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Another, reported at 2006 (11) SCC 634, the Single Judge held that a primary cooperative society does not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. On that basis, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Chaudhary then filed Special Appeal No. 233 of 2026 before the Division Bench, represented by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal. The State of Uttarakhand and respondents nos. 1 to 3 were represented by Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsel, and Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder.

The Argument That Shifted the Analysis

Before the Division Bench, counsel for Chaudhary pressed a specific point: respondent no. 3 had, in its own counter affidavit, stated that it exercised the powers of the Registrar when issuing the cancellation direction. That meant the direction was not an act of the cooperative society but an exercise of statutory power under the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act, 2003.

The argument was that the real target of the writ was the statutory order of respondent no. 3, not the internal action of the society. Since the termination flowed directly from that statutory direction, the writ petition was fully maintainable. The Standing Counsel for the State was unable to dispute that Chaudhary's services had been terminated on the basis of the directions issued by respondent no. 3 in purported exercise of powers of the Registrar under the Uttarakhand Co-operative Societies Act, 2003.

The Division Bench's Reasoning

The Division Bench identified the core issue that the Single Judge had not addressed: whether the direction issued by respondent no. 3 fell within the ambit of his power under the Act, and whether the exercise of that power was valid in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Bench held that this question could “definitely be examined by the writ court.” Once the challenge was understood as being directed at a statutory authority's order, the writ petition could not be characterised as one directed only against the action of respondent no. 4, the cooperative society. The Article 12 analysis applied by the Single Judge was therefore inapposite to the real controversy.

The Division Bench expressly stated it was unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Single Judge and allowed the appeal.

Order

The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 07.05.2026 in respect of WPSS No. 2396 of 2022. The writ petition was restored to its original number. The Bench directed that it shall be decided on its own merits, treating the writ petition as maintainable. Any pending applications were also disposed of.