Analysis of Appointment of CEOs in Cooperative Banks under Chhattisgarh Law

Explore the detailed legal analysis by the court regarding the appointment of CEOs in Cooperative Banks under Chhattisgarh law. The interpretation of statutory provisions and their interaction plays a pivotal role in maintaining regulatory control and ensuring proper governance within the cooperative banking sector. This summary highlights the importance of understanding the legislative intent behind specific clauses to avoid any mismanagement of public funds.


  • The appellant appointed the sixth respondent as the CEO of the first respondent on 11 August 2017.
  • The appointment was justified under Section 54(3) of the Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Societies Act 1960.
  • The Board of Directors (BoD) meeting was scheduled for 16 August 2017, so the sixth respondent was not immediately given charge as the CEO.
  • The Registrar of Cooperative Societies confirmed the legality of the appointment of the sixth respondent as CEO.
  • The BoD of the first respondent later accepted the appointment of the sixth respondent on 25 August 2017.
  • The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Judge dated 19 January 2018.
  • The appointment of the CEO had been ratified by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and accepted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the first respondent.
  • The Division Bench held that the appointment of the CEO and its ratification were without the authority of law.
  • It was determined that there was no failure on the part of the first respondent in making an ad-interim arrangement for the CEO.
  • The Division Bench found that the appellant’s actions were considered a usurpation of power by the Apex Body.
  • The Division Bench held that the ratification of the appointment by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was of no consequence.
  • The appellant was faulted by the Division Bench for stepping in to fill a perceived vacuum when none existed.
  • Under the amended provisions of Section 54(3) effective from 14 December 2016, the appellant had no role in the appointment of the CEO.

Also Read: Legal Analysis on Arbitration Petition Limitation Period


  • Section 57-B of the 1960 Act was inserted by the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act 2012.

Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142


  • The provision in dispute relates to the appointment of CEOs of Cooperative Banks, specifically addressing Cooperative Banks that have received financial assistance from the State Government.
  • The introduction of clauses (a) and (b) in Section 54(3) by the 2016 Amendment Act grants Cooperative Banks the power to appoint their CEOs, subject to RBI’s eligibility criteria.
  • These clauses are considered special provisions for Cooperative Banks that override the general provisions of the 1960 Act.
  • The dispute arises from the interpretation of these clauses in relation to the appointment of CEOs in Central Societies funded by the State Government.
  • The High Court’s decision regarding the appointment of CEOs could have significant negative impacts on the cooperative system, leading to mismanagement of public funds.
  • The legislative intent behind these clauses is to ensure regulatory control over Cooperative Banks receiving state funding, as specified in Section 49-E(2).
  • The conflict between clauses (a) and (b) and other provisions like Section 49-E(2) requires a harmonious interpretation to uphold the legislative purpose and avoid rendering any provision ineffective.
  • Notifications issued by the State Government under Section 54(3) and the role of the Registrar in appointing CEOs in case of failure by the Cooperative Bank are also integral to this analysis.
  • The specific criteria laid out by the RBI for CEO eligibility under these clauses further emphasize the regulatory oversight and control objectives of the legislation.
  • Overall, the analysis of these clauses and their interaction with other provisions aims to maintain proper governance, financial control, and regulatory measures within the cooperative banking sector.
  • Section 54(3)(a) and (b) clearly states that the power to appoint a CEO lies with the Cooperative Society, not the Apex Society.
  • The State Government can specify the class of societies to employ officers from cadres maintained by Apex or Central Societies.
  • The term ‘class of societies’ includes various types of societies covered by the 1960 Act, such as Cooperative Banks.
  • Section 10 of the 1960 Act requires the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to classify societies under specific heads.
  • Sub-section (2) of Section 54 mandates Apex and Central Societies to maintain a cadre of officers directed by the State Government.
  • Appointment of the CEO was initially under section 57-B of the 1960 Act, but the 2016 Amendment Act shifted this provision to Section 54(3)(b).
  • Section 49-E applies when the State Government has contributed to the share capital, given loans, guaranteed repayments, or provided grants to a society.
  • Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 49-E override other provisions under the 1960 Act or society by-laws for CEO appointments.
  • Sub-section (1) of Section 49-E focuses on the Managing Director of an Apex Society.
  • Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 49-E requires every Central Society to have a Managing Director as the CEO.
  • Appointment of the Central Society’s CEO must be from the cadre maintained under Section 54 or with Registrar approval.
  • Section 57-B of the 1960 Act governing CEO appointments was omitted in the 2016 Amendment Act, shifting authority to Cooperative Banks.
  • The language of the 1960 Act emphasizes that each type of Cooperative Society appoints its CEO.
  • For a Central Society to fall under Section 49-E(2), the State Government must have provided capital, loans, guarantees, or grants.
  • The CEO of a Central Society falling under Section 49-E(2) should be appointed from the cadre of officers maintained under Section 54.
  • Interpretation of statutes is unnecessary if the language is clear and unambiguous.
  • State Cooperative Bank’s arbitrary appointment of the Central Cooperative Bank’s CEO exceeds its powers under the 1960 Act.
  • Section 54 outlines provisions for appointing Managers, Secretaries, and officers of societies.
  • Section 57-B(19) was omitted, introducing clauses (a) and (b) under sub-section (3) of Section 54 to empower Cooperative Banks for CEO appointments.
  • Section 49-E deals with CEO appointments in specific circumstances as indicated by its marginal notes.
  • Where an enquiry is pending before the Regional Conciliation Officer, no employer shall discharge or dismiss any workman.
  • A conflicting situation between two provisions must be interpreted harmoniously, giving effect to the specific provision over the general one.
  • The principle of generalia specialibus non derogant applies, where a specific provision prevails over a general one in case of conflict.
  • Interpretations that advance the remedy intended by the enactment should be adopted, ensuring neither provision is rendered ineffective.
  • Specific provisions concerning the appointment of the CEO of Cooperative Banks prevail over general provisions.
  • The State Government is empowered to issue notifications for the appointment of CEOs of Cooperative Banks falling within specific provisions.
  • In cases of penalties or liabilities, specific definitions and conditions must be met to impose such consequences.
  • Proper officer satisfaction and compliance with conditions under relevant sections are prerequisites for actions or orders.
  • The interpretation of conflicting provisions should be such that the legislative intent is preserved and implemented effectively.

Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election


  • The appointment of the sixth respondent as CEO was ratified by the Registrar of Societies in a reply dated 21 August 2017.
  • The appointment was accepted by the Board of Directors of the first respondent on 25 August 2017.
  • The appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 7 August 2018 was set aside.
  • The learned Single Judge’s order dismissing the Writ Petition was upheld by the Court for reasons mentioned earlier.
  • No costs were assigned in this matter.


Case Number: C.A. No.-001961-001961 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *