( 1. ) THE main question that requires to be considered in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether or not an employee of a Co-operative Bank can seek a declaration to the invalidity of the termination of his contract of service when the employer acted in violation of the rule made by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies governing the service conditions of the employees of the Bank.

( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are these:-The respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Agent of the petitioner Bank which is a Co-operative Society registered and governed by the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The respondent No. 1 took charge on 30-9-1963. On 7-12-1964 he was confirmed. He applied for two days casual leave. It appears that he left Ghatigaon where he was posted and went to his home at Morar. The respondent No. 1 then applied for earned leave for a period from 3-4-1968 to 18-4-1968. Thereafter, he applied for extension of the earned leave up to 4-5-1968. The respondent No. 1 wanted to attend the law classes at Gwalior and he stated that he had been granted permission by the Chairman to attend the law classes. The petitioner Bank did not extend the leave. The respondent No. 1 reported on duty on 6-5-1968. On 13-5 1968, he was served with a charge-sheet for leaving the head quarters without permission and for acting in discharge of his duties in an irresponsible manner. A departmental enquiry was instituted against him and he was found guilty. After a show cause notice, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 5-6-1968.

( 3. ) THE respondent No. 1 aggrieved by the decision raised a dispute under section 55 (2) of the M. P Co-operative Societies Act, I960 before the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. After a due trial of the dispute, the Deputy Registrar passed an order dated 27-2-1972 allowing the claim of the respondent No. 1, holding that the dismissal order was not in accordance with rules 44 and 45 of the Co-operative Bank Employees Service Rules and ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with back salary and allowances. The petitioner Bank then took up the matter in appeal which was heard by Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Additional registrar, respondent No. 3, allowed the appeal of the Bank and set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar. The Additional Registrar was of the view that the remedy of the respondent No. 1 lay in a claim for damages and reinstatement could not be allowed. The respondent No. 1 then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue The learned President, Board of Revenue allowed the appeal on 28-8-1974 holding inter alia that the respondent No. 1 was protected by statutory obligations which were mandatory and binding on the petitioner-Bank. He further held that Shri S. P. Jain, the Officer-in-charge could not be delegated the powers by the Apex and, therefore, the order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 was illegal. He set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Bank for disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner now seeks to challenge this order by this petition. ( 4. ) THE petitioner-Bank contended that it was not a statutory body and the relationship of its employees was solely governed by the general law of master and servant. The Co-operative Central Bank Employees Service Rules, framed in exercise of powers under section 55 of the Co-operative Societies act by the Registrar, merely regulated the conditions of contract of service. There was no statutory obligation to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service nor such a declaration could be obtained by him. If at all the removal was wrongful the respondent No. 1 could only obtain damages as no contract of personal service could be specifically enforced. As regards the second contention, it was urged that S. P. Jain, Officer-in-charge stepped into the shoes of the State Co-operative Bank and an ord