WP(C) 2786/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI While the petitioner, Nandeswar Das, was serving as a Salesman of Howly Samabai Samiti Ltd., one Sri Badan Chandra Barman, provincialised Secretary of Uttar Gob ardhana S.S. Ltd., who had been given the additional charge of Secretary of Howl y S.S. Limited, was withdrawn by order, dated 26.9.2005, issued by the responden t No.3, namely, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Barpeta, and the p resent writ petitioner, who was the Salesman, as indicated hereinbefore, was app ointed as in-charge Secretary of Howly Samabai Samiti Limited till the joining o f Dwijen Bayan, provincialised Secretary of Howly Samabai Samiti Limited. Follow ing the order, dated 01.3.2006, passed by the respondent No.3, petitioner’s enga gement as in-charge Secretary of Howly Samabai Samiti Limited, as per resolution of the Managing Committee, held on 13.9.2005, was approved by the respondent No .3. By order, dated 30.5.20065, the petitioner was relieved of the office of the Secretary of Howly Samabai Samiti Limited and one Niren Pathak, Junior Inspecto r/Auditor of Cooperative Societies, Barpeta, was appointed as in-charge Secretar y of Howly Samabai Samiti Limited. By, however, yet another order, dated 11.6.20 08, the order, dated 30.5.2008, was vacated and the petitioner came back to hold the charge of the office of the Secretary, Howly Samabai Samiti Limited; but on 19.6.2008, an order was made by the respondent No.2, namely, Registrar of Coope rative Societies, approving the appointment of respondent No.5, namely, Jagannat h Das, as Secretary of Howly Samabai Samiti Limited. The petitioner impugned the same in this writ petition. Heard Ms. D. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. M. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. H. Deka, learned counsel for respondent No.5. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that by order, dated 19th June, 2008, the proposal for appointment of respondent No.5 had been approved. It is clear that the petitioner was not a regularly appointed Secreta ry, he could not have, therefore while working as a Salesman, claim, in law, to remain appointed as the in-charge Secretary, when he was sought to be replaced b y the respondent No.5. Be that as it may, subsequent to the impugned order, dated 19.6.2008, one Sri M. Hussain, Secretary of Dakshin Chilazari Samabai Samiti Limited, has been direct ed, by order, dated 25.8.2010, issued by the respondent No.3, to hold, in additi on to his normal duties as Secretary of Dakshin Chilazari Samabai Samiti Limited , the charge of the office of Secretary of Howly Samabai Samiti Limited and the newly appointed Secretary has already taken over charge from respondent No.5, w hose appointment was under challenge in the writ petition. Considering the fact that the respondent No.5 has, now, been replaced by a provi ncialised Secretary, who has been directed to hold the additional charge of the office of Secretary, Howly Samabai Samiti Limited and his appointment is not a s ubject matter of challenge in this writ petition, this writ petition, as discuss ed above, has become infructuous and shall accordingly stand disposed of. No order as to cost. Let the copy of the order, dated 25th August, 2010, which has been produced by t he learned counsel respondent No.5, be kept with the record of this case.