JUDGMENT : D.P.S. Chauhan, J. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 30-3-1992 passed by the Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Beruim Development Block Bahariya Distt. Allahabad (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Society'), whereby the Petitioner was suspended. 2. Petitioner was an Accountant in the Society and he was officiating as Secretary. On the posting of a regular Secretary in the Society, Petitioner was asked to handover the charge and on his failure to do so, he was placed under suspension by the Secretary of the Society by the aforesaid order for disobeying the same. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for Petitioner made following three fold submissions: (a) that the impugned order is bad and is without jurisdiction as the same has been passed by the Secretary of the Society who is not competent authority to suspend the Petitioner as in view of the definition of the word "employee" as given in sub-Clause (a) of Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules 1976 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'Centralised Service Rules') His services would be governed under the said Rules, wherein the authority of the Secretary of the Society is not competent to pass any order regarding suspension, as there under it is the authority of the District Administrative Committee or Chairman District Administrative Committee or Secretary Distt. Administrative Committee, who could have passed the order of suspension against the Petitioner. (b) that the Petitioner having been allowed to work on the post of the Secretary in the Society in pursuance of the circular of the Registrar. Cooperative Society dated 29-4-1992, which is Annexure IV to the petition, his services would be governed by the aforesaid Centralised Service Rules, under which the authority of the Secretary of the Society, is not competent to pass the impugned order of suspension; and (c) that the Petitioner has been suspended on the basis of non-compliance of the order relating to his transfer, which remained dormant for about two years and the impugned order of suspension having been passed after lapse of two years, is bad. 4. The submissions as advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are being dealt with seriatim. 5. 4. The submissions as advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are being dealt with seriatim. 5. According to the first submission as advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order of suspension passed by the Secretary of the Society is without jurisdiction as his services would be governed by the Centralised Service Rules, wherein the suspension of the employees can be done either by the District Administrative Committee or by the Chairman District Administrative Committee of by the Secretary District Administrative Committee and the impugned, order has not been passed by any such authority, but has been passed by the Secretary of the Society, who under the aforesaid Centralised Service Rules, is not the authority. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his submission placed reliance on the definition of the word ''Employee" as mentioned in Sub-clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Centralised Service Rules, which is as extracted below: "Employee" means a person in the whole time service of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies and working on the posts, included in the Centralised Service. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the Rules 13 and 14 of the Centralised Service Rules for showing that the authority to suspend under those Rules is either the District Administrative Committee or Chairman District Administrative Committee or Secretary District Administrative Committee. 7. The proper analysis of the Centralised Service Rules discloses that in the Rules, 13, and 14 the word "Employee" has not been used and the word used is "member of the Centralised Service". The word "Employee" is used in Rules 20, 21 and 22 of the Centralised Service Rules. Use of these two words in the Centralised Service Rules have got different meaning, different purpose and different back ground. 8. The word "Centralised Service" is defined in Clause (c) of Rule 2 of the Centralised Service Rules, which is as extracted below: 'Centralised Service' means the service which includes the post mentioned in Rule 3. The word "Member" is defined in Clause (f) of Rule 2 of the Centralised Service Rules, which is as extracted below: 'Member' means a person appointed or absorbed on a post included in the Centralised Service. The word "Member" is defined in Clause (f) of Rule 2 of the Centralised Service Rules, which is as extracted below: 'Member' means a person appointed or absorbed on a post included in the Centralised Service. In the Centralised Service Rules, the word 'Member of the Centralised Service' have been used throughout except under Rules 20, 21 and 22, where the words "Employees of the Societies" have been used. Rules 20, 21 and 22 are extracted below: 20. The existing employees of the Societies at the commencement of these Rules shall be deemed to be provisionally absorbed in the Centralised Senvice; Provided that the employees provisionally absorbed shall continue to draw their salaries and other allowances in their respective old scales from the Societies concerned. 21. The existing employees of the societies taken provisionally on the strength of the Centralised Service shall be finally absorbed in the said Service after their screening arranged in accordance with the instructions issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in this behalf. 22. An employee of a Society provisionally included in the Centralised Service shall, by notice in writing in that behalf of the Secretary of the District Committee within 30 days of the commencement of these Rules, intimate his option of not becoming a member of such Service and in that case his services shall be deemed to be terminated with effect from the date of such notice and he shall be entitled to the following compensation from the Society concerned: (i) In the case of permanent employee a sum equivalent to his salary (including all allowances) for a period of 3 months or for the remaining period of his service, whichever is less; (ii) In the case of a temporary employee a sum equivalent to his salary (including all allowances) for a period of one month or for the remaining period of his service, whichever is less; Provided that when any such employees holds a lien on any post other than the posts included in this service, shall be entitled to revert to the post on which he holds (he lien and if he so reverts, he shall not be entitled to any compensation. These Rules relate to the absorption of an employee of a Co-operative Society provisionally, in the Centralized Service and thereafter finally. These Rules relate to the absorption of an employee of a Co-operative Society provisionally, in the Centralized Service and thereafter finally. The question of absorption arose as the services of the Secretary/Managing Director in the Primary Agricultural co-operative Credit Societies and Farmer's Service Co-operative Societies, which is also a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society were centralised, through the Centralised Service Rules framed u/s 122-A of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Prior to the creation of the Cent ralised Service, the Secretary and Managing Director were the employees of the concerned Cooperative societies and for this purpose the words "Employees of the Co-operative Societies" have been used in the Rules 20, 21 and 22 of the Centralised Service Rules and for this purpose also the word "Employees" has been defined under Clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Centralised Service Rules as in the Centralised Service, only those whole timers working on the posts of Secretary/Managing Director could be absorbed in the Centralised Service as created by the Centralised Service Rules. The definition is not for the purpose other than the purpose finding out as to which category of the employee of the Society could be deemed to be absorbed or finally absorbed in the Uttar Pradesh Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service. Rule 3 created the Centralised Service, which is as extracted below: The Centralised Service shall comprise the posts of Managing Directors of the Farmer's Service Co-operative Societies and Secretaries of the Primary Agricultural Societies. Thus, using of word 'Employee" under Rule 22 and 23 is for a limited purpose i.e. identifying the employees of the Co-operative Societies, which could be deemed to be absorbed provisionally or finally in the Centralised Service, i.e. for the purpose of eligibility for absorption. The word "employee' in the Centralised Service is not used as synonymous with the words "Member of Centralised Service". The Petitioner, who was officiating on the post of Centralised Service subsequent to the coming into force the Centralised Service Rules, would not become the Member of the Centralised Service as he is neither appointed or absorbed in the post of Centralised Service under Centralised Service Rules in accordance with the procedure provided thereof. He is, as such, not the Member of the Centralized Service and thus is not governed by the Centralised Service Rules. He is, as such, not the Member of the Centralized Service and thus is not governed by the Centralised Service Rules. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is sans merit. 9. So far as the second submission is concerned, learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not point out any such power vested in the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 or the Rules framed there under or the Centralised Service Rules to issue any circular regarding appointment of any person as the member of the Centralized Service. The Registrar under the law has no authority to modify the Centralised Service Rules or to supplement the same. The circular has not been shown to have been issued by the Registrar Co-operative Societies under any statutory power or authority. Unless the circular is issued under statutory power, the same cannot be treated as having any force of law such a circular has no legal efficacy and relevance, which may be by way of private institution but cannot have any legal identity. 10. Thus on the basis of the said circular the services of the Petitioner cannot be held to be governed by the Centralised Service Rules. Apart from this the circular does not speak about the appointment of the Petitioner in the Centralised Service. It deals with the matter regarding selection of the persons in the Centralised Service from amongst the Accountants working in the Co-operative Societies, if there is shortage of the Member of the Centralised Service. The said circular is of no help to the Petitioner. 11. The last submission of the Petitioner is that be has been placed under suspension by the Secretary of the Society on the basis of the order passed about two years back. The services of the Petitioner are not governed by any statutory Rules, but are governed by the relationship of Master and servant-under the bye-laws of the Society. No legal right of the Petitioner is violated. If the Petitioner is aggrieved from the order Secretary of the Society he may approach the Committee of Management, which has authority and control over the Secretary. No legal right of the Petitioner is violated. If the Petitioner is aggrieved from the order Secretary of the Society he may approach the Committee of Management, which has authority and control over the Secretary. In case, he finds that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act and Rules framed there under or the bye-laws then he may have recover u/s 128 of the Act for getting the order annulled I am not expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter and the Petitioner may avail the remedy as may be available to him under law or as may be advised. 12. The writ petition, which is incompetent, is dismissed in limine