ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.

Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned standing counsel for the Cooperation Department.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed a resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the Dakhin Kampur Samabai Samiti Ltd. on 16.06.2016 by which, the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the society has been placed under suspension.

3. Dr. Ahmed, learned standing counsel for the Cooperation Department has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, there is no employer/employee relation between the petitioner and the state respondent authorities.

4. In this writ petition, learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court rendered in Risheswar Neog v. State of Assam, reported in 1993 (1) GLR 184.

5. In paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been stated as under:—

“12.In view of the above discussions, the appointment of the petitioner as a Secretary in the Office of the society and his removal from service shall be governed by Rules 33(2) and 35 of the Rules read with bye-law 27. Under bye-law 27, appointment and removal of an employee of a society require prior approval of the Registrar and the Financial Bank. Although, the appointment of a Secretary in the office of a 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 society is that of master and servant. As has been held by the Supreme Court, the condition requiring prior approval of the Registrar and the Financial Bank for removing an employee officer of the society under bye-law 27 is a part of contract of service. For these reasons the present writ petition is for enforcement of personal service or service contract of the petitioner. it is well settled that a contract of service or personal service cannot be specifically enforced because of the common law principle. The remedy in such a contractual relationship of master and servant is damages because personal service is not capable of enforcement. If any authority is required, I may refer to Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, (1975) 1 SCC 421 : AIR 1975 SC 1331.”

6. From the aforesaid pronouncement, it is apparent that a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of the service condition of a Secretary of a cooperative society. The said decision has also been followed by this Court in another decision rendered in Md. Liakat Ali v. State of Assam, in WP(C) No. 4168/2017.

7. In the said subsequent decision by the judgment and order dated 28.07.2017, it has also been held that a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of the service condition of a Secretary of a cooperative society.

8. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as a resolution dated 16.06.2016 of the aforesaid Dakhin Kampur Samabai Samiti Ltd. has been assailed, whereby, the petitioner, who is the Secretary of the aforesaid samiti has been placed under suspension.

9. In terms of the above, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing any other remedy against the resolution dated 16.06.2016, that may be available under the law.