A. N. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THESE three petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the principal issue arising therein is identical. The question which arises for consideration is and upon which the fate of these petitions depends is whether the petitioners had been duly absorbed in the service of the U. P. Co-operative Union Ltd. , Lucknow recognised as Co-operative Federal authority Under Section 124 (1) of the U P Co-operaitive Societies Act. ( 2 ) THE essential facts may be summarised thus : the petitioners were appointed as Co-operative Supervisors in the provincial Co-operative Union in or about the year 1960 and were posted in different districts. In the year 1969, the petitioners services were placed at the disposal of the District Co-operative Bank, Meerut. This position costinued until February 1976 when the U. P. Co-operative Union Ltd. , was recognised as Co-operative Federal Authority (the Federal Authority hereafter for short) under Section 124 (1) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies act vide a notification issued in that behalf on 13-2-1076. The Federal authority was under the aforesaid Act authorised to recruit, train, appoint co-operative Supervisors, Accountants and Godown keepers of the Co-operative societies which were put under the control and supervision of the federal Authority. For this purpose the Federal Authority was authorised to frame Regulations. It accordingly framed Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976 The Regulations were ivided in two parts "a and B". Part - A related to the working Regulations and Part 6 related to matters relating to service conditions of the employees of the Federal Authority. Clause 4 of the working Regulations lays down the procedure for absorption inter alia of the Co-operative Supervisors of the Co-operative societies falling within the purview of the Federal Authority. Regulation 4 (2) (a) provides that all supervisors who at any time held a lien with the provincial Co-operative Union and whose lien was subsequently terminated on account of transfer of their services to a District / Central Co-operative Banks may exercise option of coming back under the control of the Federal Authority before 30-6-1976. Such supervisors were required to indicate their option on Form, and submit it to the Chairman, Disttict Committee / District Asstt. Registrar who was required to forward it to the competent authority namely, the Administrative Committee. Such supervisors were required to indicate their option on Form, and submit it to the Chairman, Disttict Committee / District Asstt. Registrar who was required to forward it to the competent authority namely, the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee was required under these Regulations to make its recommendation to the Committee of management of the Federal Authority. Under Clause (c) of Regulation 4 (2) the decision of the Committee of Management of the Authority is final if the Federal Authority decides to accept such option, the supervisors stand absorbed in the srevice of the Federal Authority. ( 3 ) IT will thus be seen that absorption of the petitioners as Supervisors in the Provincial Co-operative Union as a Federal Authority depended, firstly, on the exercise of the option by them and, sec ondly, on the approval of that option by the Committee of Management of the Federal Authority. The dispute between the parties arises from this point. The case of the petitioners is that they had duly exercised their option on Form-A within the prescribed period and that that option had also been accepted by the Federat authority. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the petitioners had not been approved for absorption by the Federal Authority and consequently the impugned orders of termination of the service of the petitioners passel by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Sbcieties, U. P. acting as chairman of Regional Committee of Co-operative Federal Authority were perfectly valid in law. ( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it may be mentioned that the Deputy registrar Co-operative Societies as Chairman of the Regional Committee of the Federal Authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners he had also framed and served charge-sheet against each of the petitioners in January 1977. Subsequently, by orders passed in January 1977, the Deputy Registrar as Chairman of the Regional Federal Authority passed simple orders of termination against each of the three petitioners giving them a months salary in lieu of notice. The petitioners challenged these orders by way of a petition in this Court which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy available to them by way of an appeal before the Administrative Committee of the Co-operative federal Authority, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow. The petitioners then filed appeals which were dismissed by the orders passed by the Administrative Committee. The petitioners then filed appeals which were dismissed by the orders passed by the Administrative Committee. The petitioners thereafter filed the present petitions challenging both the initial orders passed by the Deputy Registrar terminating their services as well as the appellate orders passed by the Administrative Committee affirming the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. ( 5 ) IN support of the petitioners contention that they had been duly absorbed, Sri A. B. Saran, their learned counsel placed strong reliance on annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 20-12-1988 which purports to be an order dated 15-10-1976 issued by the Additional Registrar (Administration) of the Co-operative Societies-cum-Chairman of the Federal Authority. The order states that pending recommendation of the Administrative Committee regarding the option exercised by the petitioners and other Supervisors and the decision of the Federal Authority in respect thereof, the transfer of the petitioners and others to the Federal Authority is accepted. The contention was that this order clearly supports the averments made by the petitioners in paragraphs 2 and 3 of writ petition No 9415 of 1979, to the effect that the petitioners services had been duly transferred to the Federal authority with effect from 1-7-1976. ( 6 ) THE contention is devoid of any merit. The order dated 15-10-197 is explicit and unambiguous. It expressly states that the transfer of the petitioners services to the Federal Authority was subject to the recommendation of the Administrative Committee. Further under the scheme reflected by the aforesaid Regulations, the power to accept or reject the options exercised by co-operative Supervisors in favour of absorption in the Federal Authority vasts exclusively in the Committee of Management of the Federal Authority. Tae decision of the Committee of Management in this matter is regarded as final. Thus, in either view of the matter, the order dated 15-10-1976 passed by the Additional Registrar (Administration) lends no support to the petitioners contention. The order could not, in my considered view, result in a valid absorption / transfer of the services of the petitioners in the Federal. Authority. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel next placed reliance on the phraseology of the impugned order which, in the submission of the learned counsel, itself indicates that the petitioners services had already stood transferred to the Federal Authority. Authority. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel next placed reliance on the phraseology of the impugned order which, in the submission of the learned counsel, itself indicates that the petitioners services had already stood transferred to the Federal Authority. Learned counsel submitted 1 hat the impugned order states that the petitioners services are no longer required and are accordingly being terminated. It does not show that the services of the petitioners in the Federal authority were being put an end is on the ground that this option had not been accepted by the Committee of Management of the Federal Authority ( 8 ) I am unable to agree. The impugned order in perfectly consistent with the stand taken by the Federal Authority in the counter affidavit, namely, that the petitioners not having been approved for absorption in the Federal authority, their services were terminated from that Authority. In my opinion it was not necessary to state specifically in the order that the services of the petitioner were being terminated on the ground of the Administrative Committee had not approved of the absorption of the petitioners in the Federal authority. In any case, the mere absence of that recital in the impugned order cannot be decisive of the controversy whether the petitioners had been actually absorbed by the competent authority in the service of the Federal authority. It has been categorically asserted in the supplementary counter affidavit that the order dated 15-10-1976 was issued pending and subject to the approval of the Administrative Committee of Federal Authority and inasmuch as the Administrative Committee had not approved the absorption of the petitioners their services were terminated. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next submitted that even the appellate order passed by the Administrative Committee does not state that the petitioners options had not been accepted by the Federal Authority this, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted. Lends support of the petitioners assertion that they had been duly absorbed in the Federal authority. ( 10 ) I am not impressed by the argument. The appellate order was conveyed by the Secretary of the Co-operative Society. A true copy of the extract of the resolution passed by the Administrative Committee at its meeting held on 28-7-1979 has been filed as Annexure CA 2 with the main counter affidavit. ( 10 ) I am not impressed by the argument. The appellate order was conveyed by the Secretary of the Co-operative Society. A true copy of the extract of the resolution passed by the Administrative Committee at its meeting held on 28-7-1979 has been filed as Annexure CA 2 with the main counter affidavit. It states that it has considered the entire matter and in its opinion, the order passed by the Chairman of the Regional Committee of federal Authority was valid and proper and consequently, the appeal was being dismissed. The appellate order is, in my opinion, fully in accord with the stand taken by the respondents. If my conclusion that the petitioners services were terminated on the simple ground that they had not been approved for absorption in the Federal Authority, the Appellate Authority which was none other than the Administrative Committee need not have recited this fact in its order. At any rate, the omission to mention the reason cannot automatically prove that the petitioners had been duly absorbed in the Federal Authority. ( 11 ) TO sum up, the transfer of the petitioners service under the order dated 15-10-1976 referred to above to the Federal Authority was provisional and expressly subject to the acceptance of the option by the competent authority. The status of the petitioners in the Federal Authority during this period that is July 1976 to January 1977 was analogous to the status of temporary or ad hoc Co-operative Supervisors. Once the Deputy Registrar as Chairman of the Regional Committee of the Federal Authority was apprised of the fact that the option of the petitioners had not been accepted. He had no option but to terminate the services of the petitioners as Supervisors in the Federal Authority by giving them a simple notice or a months pay in lieu thereof. I am fully fortified have by the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash and others y. Deputy Registrar, reported in 1984 U. P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 686. The facts of this case are in port materia with those obtaining in these petitions. ( 12 ) IN the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed. But I make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .