JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - The petitioner Govind Narain Shukla has sought quashing of the order dated 22nd March, 1978 terminating him from the post of salesman in a temporary capacity in the District Co-operative Federation Ltd., Kanpur. 2. The petitioner alleged that he was appointed on 25th May, 1973 in the Federation on the aforesaid post for a probation of one year. After expiry of one year, he was permitted to continue. The petitioner's claim was that by virtue of the long term office and continuance, he became permanent, as such the termination order was illegal. After hearing Shri D. P. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri R. N. Upadhya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, we do not consider it necessary to decide whether the petitioner expired the permanency of his employment inasmuch as the petitioner's services had been terminated on that ground alone. But, as the petitioner had been appointed after 25th May, 1972, if sanction of the institutional board were to be made or the appointment was legal, this is the only question which we arc called upon to decide. In two cases this controversy came up for decision. 3. One of the cases reported is that of Udai Bir Singli v. The District Assistant Regisrar, Co-operative Societies, Etah and others, AIR 1977. p. 395. In that case the petitioner was appointed on 9-12-1972 by the Administrator and was terminated by the Administrator on 23rd July, 1976. The validity of this order was challenged by means of a writ petition filed by Udaibir Singh. The validity of this order was sought to be supported on the basis that since after the creation of the institutional board appointment could be made without its sanction, the appointment of Udaibir Singh was valid. On this, the argument of the respondent Committee of Management was that the termination order was valid. A Division Bench upheld the contention of the respondent Committee of Management and found that the petitioner's appointment was invalid, and as such he was not entitled to any relief. 4. An appeal was preferred and taken up to the Supreme Court against this decision which was decided by it in the case of Virendra Pal Singh v. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Etah, reported in 1980. U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases p. 202. 4. An appeal was preferred and taken up to the Supreme Court against this decision which was decided by it in the case of Virendra Pal Singh v. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Etah, reported in 1980. U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases p. 202. The Supreme Court held : "If despite the constitution of the Board and the issuance of administrative instructions some co-operative societies chose to make appointment, such appointments have necessarily to be held invalid. The fact that regulations had not been made when the appointments were made did not empower the Committee of Management to make appointments usurping the power of the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board " 5. In the instant case, the position is exactly the same. The institutional board was created in July, 1972 whereas the appointment of the petitioner was made in May, 1973. In between the administration issued directions that no appointment shall be made without the sanction of the institutional board. Consequently, the petitioner's appointment had been held to be invalid and no relief could be given to him. In the present writ petition too, no relief can be given to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 6. There shall be no order as to costs.