Prescribed Officers hold no vested right to the post and may be removed in administrative exigency.

The petitioner was appointed as a Prescribed Officer (Prardhikrit Adhikari) of the Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Ganjar on 14.11.2024 under Rule 43-B of the Rules of 1962

On 12.12.2025, respondent No. 5 issued an order removing the petitioner and appointing respondent No. 6 in his place

The petitioner challenged this before the Joint Registrar (Respondent No. 4), who dismissed the appeal on 19.03.2026, relying on Section 49(8) of the Act of 1960 and prior High Court precedent (WPC No. 33/2024)

The petitioner approached the High Court contending that his removal was arbitrary, lacked a hearing, and violated the statutory provision that he should continue until the board elections

1. Whether the removal of a Prescribed Officer appointed under Section 49(8) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 requires a prior show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing

2. Whether a temporary appointee as a Prescribed Officer has a vested right to continue in the post until the holding of elections

Section 49(8) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rule 43-B of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962, which empower the competent authority to appoint and remove Prescribed Officers for the smooth functioning of societies

The principle that temporary administrative appointments made in the absence of an elected body do not create indefeasible rights

Judicial precedent set in WPC No. 33/2024, which affirmed the authority’s power to effect such removals under administrative exigency

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s appointment was inherently temporary, intended only to facilitate the society's operations until an elected board is constituted

Applying Section 49(8), the court found that the power to appoint includes the power to remove or replace an officer based on administrative exigencies

The court rejected the petitioner's claim of natural justice violations, holding that given the nature of the temporary appointment, a formal hearing was not mandatory for removal

The court determined that the appellate authority (Joint Registrar) had adequately examined the record and applied the relevant legal position, leaving no room for a finding of patent illegality or jurisdictional error

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the orders dated 19.03.2026 and 12.12.2025, and concluded that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was made out