D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) After having been suspended pursuant to the inquiry held, the petitioner was not found guilty of the alleged charges. Therefore, a resolution was taken by the society to reinstate the petitioner on 27th January, 1999 contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition. But despite 'such resolution, the petitioner has neither been allowed to resume his duties nor has been paid his different of salary for the period during which he was kept under suspension. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation to the District Assistant Registrar but the District Assistant Registrar has not yet decided the petitioner's representation. Mr., Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Assistant Registrar may be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation so that the resolution may be implemented by the respondent Society.
(2.) Mr. K.N. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand takes a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition does not lie against the Co-operative Society. According to him, the petitioner is not governed by any statutory rules or regulations relating to his service. U.P. Agricultural Co-operative Societies Contralized Service Rules, 1976 is applicable in respect of the employees of the concerned society. But the petitioner is not a member of the Centralized Service and as such, he is not governed by the said Rules, 1976. On the other hand, the petitioner is governed by the bye-laws of the Society. As such in relation to the conditions of service of the petitioner, Society does not discharge any statutory obligation and, therefore, by reason of the Full Bench decision, writ does not lie against the co-operative society. In absence of any statutory obligation, the present writ petition is not maintainable. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) I have heard both the learned Counsel at length.;