CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is by an employee of the 2nd respondent - Sira Taluk Primary co-operative Land Development Bank. He has challenged the order of the Common cadre Authority created under Section 128a of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for primary Land Development Banks. The order is at Annexure-C to the petition, the purport of the order is to refuse approval for re-appointment of the petitioner as an employee of the 2nd respondent-Bank for the reasons given in the order. ( 2 ) THE facts may be stated briefly and they are as follows. The petitioner is an employee who came to be dismissed following an enquiry on the charge of misappropriation of rs. 5625/ -. That order was passed on 28-7-1977. Thereafter, it appears he made good the amounts misappropriated and appealed to the Committee of Management of the 2nd respondent-Bank for re-employment in the Bank. The Bank in that circumstance re-appointed him subject to the approval of the Common Cadre authority (claimed to be a case of reinstatement ). In that behalf Secretary of the 2nd respondent Bank requested the common Cadre Authority to accord approval to the re-appointment of the official. That has been refused. The operative portion of the order is as follows :"the Secretary, PLDB, Sira has requested the CCA to accord approval for re-appointment o! the official. The subject was placed before the CCA committee on 9-3-1982 and it was resolved not to approve the reappointment made by the PLDB Sirs as he has misappropriated the funds of the Bank. Further it was also resolved to direct the president, PLDB, Sira to relieve the official immediately. Hence the order. "in this Court Mr. K. N. Chandrashekhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contends that the Common cadre Authority cannot withhold the approval and therefore the same may be quashed. The contention must be rejected for the following two reasons. ( 3 ) THE contention that Common Cadre authority has no jurisdiction is without substance. All appointments made without approval of Common Cadre Authority is a nullity. Section 128a of the Act reads as follows :"128a. Constitution of a common cadre. The contention must be rejected for the following two reasons. ( 3 ) THE contention that Common Cadre authority has no jurisdiction is without substance. All appointments made without approval of Common Cadre Authority is a nullity. Section 128a of the Act reads as follows :"128a. Constitution of a common cadre. 1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the rules or the bye-laws, where the Registrar, in the interest of the co operative movement, considers that the creation of a common cadre of employees for any class of co-operative societies is necessary, he shall authorise one or more federal societies to which such class of co-operative societies is affiliated to exercise the power of appointment, transfer and disciplinary action in respect of such categories of employees of that class of co-operative societies as may be specified by him and make such regulations as may be necessary for carrying out the said purpose. Where such federal society is so authorised by the Registrar, the affiliated co- operative societies shall not have powers to deal with such categories of employees except to the extent the regulations may permit. "whenever the Registrar forms an opinion that a class of Co-operative Society needs to have Common Cadre, he shall constitute a common Cadre for that class of societies to exercise the power of appointment, transfer and disciplinary action in respect of such categories of employees of that class of co-operative Societies as may be specified by him and make such regulations as may be necessary for carrying out the said purpose. It is pursuant to that provision contained in section 128a of the Act, the Bank apparently asked for the approval of the common Cadre Authority created for the primary Land Development Banks which are all incorporated under the Act. For reasons recorded the approval has been with-held and rightly so. therefore, it cannot be said that the Common Cadre Authority has acted without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) WHETHER the petitioner claims it to be reinstatement or whether it is a reappointment is is immaterial. The reinstatement will become necessary only when the dismissal order is set aside. It is nobody's case that the dismissal order is set aside in any proceeding taken by the petitioner after he was dismissed in 1977. ( 4 ) WHETHER the petitioner claims it to be reinstatement or whether it is a reappointment is is immaterial. The reinstatement will become necessary only when the dismissal order is set aside. It is nobody's case that the dismissal order is set aside in any proceeding taken by the petitioner after he was dismissed in 1977. Therefore, as indicated in the preamble to the impugned order, approval sought was only for re-appointment and re-appointment being one of the functions of the Common cadre Authority, the approval was absolutely necessary. The approval not having been accorded the petitioner cannot make a grievance of it. ( 5 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the learned Counsel for the Primary Land Development Bank-2nd respondent is not present in Court when this matter is heard. He is said to have been reinstated two years after the dismissal which in itself is a strange act. By 1977 the power of appointment had passed on to the common Cadre Authority, the Bank could not have appointed or re-appointed without the approval of the Common Cadre authority. ( 6 ) MR. K. N. Chendrashekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner continues to be an employee of the bank even as on this day and therefore the impugned order should be quashed. I do not think that it should be done. Apparently because of the interim stay granted by this court, he has continued in office or for some other reason. If he has continued in office despite refusal of approval of his appointment, it is a matter between the common Cadre Authority and the 2nd respondent-Bank. This Court has nothing to do with it. Merely because he has been continued in appointment, it cannot be said it forms a good ground to quash an order which is otherwise in accordance with law. ( 7 ) THIS petition is misconceived and it is rejected. Writ petition rejected. --- *** --- .