Prescribed officers hold no vested right to continuity, and authorities may remove them for administrative exigency.

The petitioner was appointed as a Prescribed Officer (Prardhikrit Adhikari) of the Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Risikela on 14.11.2024, pursuant to Rule 43-B of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962

Following a proposal for his removal, Respondent No. 5 issued an order dated 12.12.2025 removing him from the post

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar (Respondent No. 4), which was dismissed on 19.03.2026

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition, contending that his removal was arbitrary, lacked a show-cause notice, and violated the statutory scheme as elections had not been conducted since 2017–18

1. Whether the removal of a Prescribed Officer without a hearing or specific misconduct is legally sustainable under the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

2. Whether an appointed Prescribed Officer holds a vested right to continue in the post until the holding of fresh elections

The Court primarily applied Section 49(8) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which vests the competent authority with the power to appoint and remove Prescribed Officers

Rule 43-B of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, regarding the management of societies in the absence of an elected Board

The Court also applied the principle that temporary administrative appointments do not create a vested right to the post and are subject to the doctrine of "administrative exigency"

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s appointment was purely temporary in nature, intended only to facilitate the smooth functioning of the society until an elected body could be constituted

It held that under Section 49(8) of the Act, the power to appoint inherently includes the power to remove, and such decisions can be made based on administrative exigencies

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim regarding the violation of natural justice, noting that given the nature of the appointment, a formal hearing or show-cause notice was not mandatory for removal

Furthermore, the Court found that the appellate authority had rightly applied the legal precedent from WPC No. 33/2024, which affirmed the State’s power to replace nominated officers without proving misconduct

The petition was dismissed, and the Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders dated 19.03.2026 and 12.12.2025