Temporary Appointees have no Vested Right to Continue or Natural Justice Protections Against Administrative Removal

The petitioner was appointed as a Prescribed Officer (Prardhikrit Adhikari) of a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society on 14.11.2024 under Rule 43-B of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Society Rules, 1962

On 04.12.2025, respondent No. 5 issued an order removing the petitioner and appointing respondent No. 6 in his place

The petitioner challenged this removal before the Joint Registrar (respondent No. 4), who dismissed the appeal on 19.03.2026

The petitioner moved the High Court, alleging that his removal was arbitrary, lacked a show-cause notice, and occurred despite his efficient performance and the absence of society elections since 2017–18

1. Whether the removal of the petitioner as a Prescribed Officer without a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice

2. Whether a Prescribed Officer appointed under the Act has a vested or indefeasible right to continue in the post until elections are held

Section 49(8) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Society Act, 1960, which empowers the competent authority to appoint and remove Prescribed Officers for the smooth functioning of societies

Rule 43-B(4)(a) of the Co-operative Society Rules, 1962, regarding the temporary nature of such appointments

The Court followed the principle that temporary administrative appointments made in "administrative exigency" do not grant the appointee an indefeasible right to the post and do not strictly mandate the application of natural justice principles in the same manner as permanent service

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s appointment was inherently temporary and intended only to ensure the society's functioning until an elected body is constituted

It observed that under Section 49(8) of the Act, the competent authority retains the discretion to make administrative changes, including removal, to meet "administrative exigencies"

The Court found that since the post does not carry a vested legal right, the authority’s decision to replace the petitioner did not suffer from patent illegality or perversity

Regarding the alleged violation of natural justice, the Court held that given the nature of the temporary appointment and the specific facts of the case, the lack of a formal hearing did not vitiate the removal order

The Court held that the impugned orders of 19.03.2026 and 04.12.2025 were valid and did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

The writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioner