WP(C) 5741/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one Md Sahidul Islam, challenging the order dated 29.9.2007 pa ssed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam (respondent No. 2), appro ving the removal of the writ petitioner from the post of Secretary of Baruajhar Samabay Samity Limited. 2. I have heard Sri M U Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M U Mondal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, i.e. the Chairman of the Society. Also heard Smt V L Singh, learned Additional Senior Government A dvocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. . 3. The appointment of the petitioner as Secretary was approved by t he respondent No. 2 vide order dated 20.2.2002. In the said order, the Registrar made it clear that the Secretary will be the employee for the Society for all p urposes. When the Society noticed that the Secretary was involved in malpractice s and anomalies in the affairs of the Society for which criminal cases were also lodged, his services were terminated by the Managing Committee after taking app ropriate resolution on 12.6.2007. The dismissal of the Secretary was approved by the respondent No. 2 on 29.9.2007. 4. In the case of Risheswar Neog -Vs- State of Assam and Others, re ported in (1993) 1 GLR 184, this Court has held that the appointments and remova l of the employees of Co-operative Societies including the appointment of the Se cretary cannot be challenged in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India. This High Court has observed that although, the appointment of a Secretary in the Office of the Society requires prior approval of the Registrar , it does not mean that the Secretary holds the post under the Registrar or the Government. Therefore, the relationship between the employee Officer and the Soc iety is that of a master and servant . 5. In view of the aforesaid authority, the present writ petition is not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to vindicate his grievances before the Civil Court. At the same time, it is left open to the Mana ging Committee of the Society, which will be constituted in the next Annual Gene ral Meeting to consider the retention of the writ petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands dispo sed of.