D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Sri S. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the service of the petitioner with respondent No. 3 in the post of Salesman was dispensed with by an order dated 30-6-1987. He has challenged the said order on the ground that the termination was effected persuant to a letter issued by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Varanasi being letter dated 25-6-1987 and the oral instruction dated 30-6-1987 given by the Additional District Officer, Co-operative Societies, Rosra, being the foundation of the order of termination, without any resolution of the Co-operative Societies, can not be sustained.
(2.) Sri R.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contends that the petitioner is not governed by any statutory rules governing his condition of service. Admittedly, he is not a member of Centralised service. Admittedly the Co-operative Society is operating within the district by reason whereof rules governing the service of the employees of Co-operative Societies can not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable on two fold grounds, namely (i) that the Co-operative society is not a State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, no writ lies against it, (ii) that the relations between the society and the petitioner being contractual one and not governed by the statutory rules, the relationship being purely contractual in nature the same can not be enforced through invocation of writ jurisdiction.
(3.) Admittedly, as has been held by this court in the case of Ram Lakhan Pathak v. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society Kanpur and Ors., 1996 AWC 20 relying on the Full Bench decision in the case of Radha Charan Sharma v. Co-operative Federation and Ors., 1982 ALR 342 (FB) that the Co-operative Society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore, no writ can lie against the Co-operative Society.;