R. R. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner have challenged the order dated 16-11-1987 passed by thedistrict Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Society, Etawah, respondent 1. By the said impugned order he in exercise of powers conferred under Section 29 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had appointed sbri Jai Veer Singh, respondent 2. as Administrator of U. P. Government Roadways employees Co-operative Credit Society, Etawah. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners, as stated in the writ petition, is that the said Shri Jai Veer Singh is not a member of the Society and is a rank outsider and, therefore, in view of the circular dated 20-9-1984, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. V to the writ petition, issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the said appointment could not be made by the aforesaid District Assistant Registrar. In the case of Raghuvir Singh v. State of U. P. , [civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 14960 of 1984, decided on 2-3-1987 and reported in 1987 UPLBEO 433; (1983) All LJ 529, relevant page 445] in a similar condition the said argument was repelled by this Court in para 27 of the said judgment by observing as follows : "27. We are not impressed with the argument put forward by Shri chauhan to the effect that the Administrator appointed under Section 29 (4) (b) has necessarily to be a member of the Committee of management. No such limitation or qualification may be found incorporated expressly or by implication in Section 29. " we are ia respectful agreement with the aforesaid view of the Division Bench in the case cited above and are of the opinion that the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners has got no substance. From a perusal of the relevant provision contained in Section 29 (4) (b) of the Act, we find that there is no such limitation as is alleged by the learned couastl for the petitioners. in our opinion, under the aforesaid provision even an outsider who is not a member of the Society can be appointed as an Administrator as has been done by the impugned order. in our opinion, under the aforesaid provision even an outsider who is not a member of the Society can be appointed as an Administrator as has been done by the impugned order. ( 3 ) THE second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Assistant Registrar is appointed under Section 3 (2) of the act to assist the Registrar. He has further relied upon the Dictionary meaning of the word assist as stated in the Webster IIIrd International Dictionary, wherein word assist has been stated to mean "to help, stand by, to give support or aid. " The argument developed by the learned counsel (or the petitioners is that having regard to the circular aforesaid issued by the Registrar, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. V to the writ petition, it was not open to the District Assistant Registrar to go against the same. From a perusal of the-said circular, it is clear that it has only laid down guidelines for the appointment of an Administrator. It has been specifically stated in the laid circular that a person sought to be appointed as Administrator should be a major and should have faith in the Co-operative movements and must not have been a person eligible under Rule 453 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 framed under the Act. ( 4 ) FROM a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is amply clear to us that no such averments have been made in the writ petition that the appointment in question by the District Assistant Registrar under the imnugned order is in contravention of the aforesaid guidelines issued under the said circular. In this view of the matter, we find that there is nothing in the said circular which is not in conformity with the impugned order passed by the district Assistant Registrar. ( 5 ) RELYING upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, [ air 1984 SC 363 ], It has further been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the afore said circular is binding on the concerned District Assistant Registrar although the same is not in consonance with the statutory provisions as laid down under Section 24 (4) (b) of the Act. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into this question because as we have earlier indicated the impugned appointment has not been made in defiance of the aforesaid circular. In this view of the matter, tie said argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners need not be gone into by us. ( 6 ) ALONG with the writ petition a copy of a letter issued by the Chief minister has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. It has been stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned appointmeat has been made in violation of the aforesaid direction issued by the Chief minister. Tnis submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has legally no force for the reason that the aforesaid letter has not been issued in the exercise of statutory powers under the Act and further that in the said letter all that has been stated is that no nomination as Administrator is to be made without the consent of the Chief Minister. In our opinion, no legal right can fee based on the aforesaid letter of the Chief Minister. ( 7 ) LASTLY, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a supplementary affidavit filed by them. It has been urged that in another case the very same district Assistant Registrar has relied upon the abovementioned circular of the registrar and had made a nomination in accordance with the same but in the present case the terms of the said circular have not been complied with. For the reasons already stated above, there is no basis of the said submission, because the impugned appointment has not been made in violation of the aforesaid circular. Hence, in our opinion, having regard to the facts of the case no discrimination has been made by the opposite parties in making the impugned appointment. ( 8 ) THUS, all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners fail. ( 9 ) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.