C.W.P. No.14990 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14990 of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 Meenakshi .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Ramesh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl.A.G.,Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Prachi Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for respondents No.3,7,12,16,17,21,27,29,33,35 and 38. Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.4, 9 to 11, 13 to 15, 19,22,23,25,32 and 40. Mr.K.D.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for respondents No.5,6,8,18,20,24,26,30,31,36,37,39 and 41. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who was not selected in the year 2001, has filed the instant petition in the year 2007 for issuing direction to the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited (respondent No.2 herein) to appoint him on the post of Assistant Manager/Assistant Manager (Insp.) as he possesses all the requisite qualification. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent bank has C.W.P. No.14990 of 2007 (O&M) -2- made the selection in the year 2001 illegally and arbitrarily without considering the claim and merit of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that against respondent No.2 the present writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, U.P. V. Satrughan Nishad and Ors., JT 2003(8) SC 235 as well as decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1982 P & H 228, wherein it was held that no writ petition is maintainable against the action of the Society or Punjab State Co- operative Land Mortgage Bank. The learned counsel further pointed out that against the impugned action the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Rule 28 read with Rule 45 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'). In view of the aforesaid facts, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Registrar under the Rules. If the petitioner files any petition before the Registrar, then the respondents will not raise any objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Registrar. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. September 17, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE