R. R. K. TRIVEDT. , J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, and both the learned counsel are agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that Petitioner was appointed as peon-cum-guard on 1. 6. 1972 in the District Co-operative Bank Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Bank) and he is working since then. It is claimed that a seniority list of permanent Class IV employees was prepared in the year 1981 and his name was mentioned in this list at Serial No. 39 in which it is shown that he has only passed Class VIII. However, in 1987 the petitioner appeared as a private candidate and has passed High School Examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education in IInd Division. In Class III posts of the Bank some vacancies occurred and the Bank authorities are going to fill up the same. Petitioner on 8 8. 1987 made an application for being promoted as Class III employee. However, no attention has been paid to the request of the applicant. Thereafter a representation also filed on 29. 10. 1991. However, on 20. 2 1992 petitioner has been informed that the qualification for Class III post is Intermediate and as the petitioner is only High School, his claim for promotion to Class III post cannot be accepted. It has also been said in the order that the judgment of this Court dated 3. 4. 1991 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32701 of 1990 Ved Prakash Sharma v. Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board, is applicable only to the facts of that case and the petitioner cannot be given benefit of the same about which guidance has been obtained from the Registrar of. the Co-operative Societies. Aggrieved by this communication dated 20. 2. 1992. Annexure-3 to the writ petition, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondents to promote petitioner as grade 3 employee with effect from 1. 8. 1987. ( 3 ) THE claim of the petitioner hat been resisted by the respondent Bank by filing a counter-affidavit. 2. 1992. Annexure-3 to the writ petition, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondents to promote petitioner as grade 3 employee with effect from 1. 8. 1987. ( 3 ) THE claim of the petitioner hat been resisted by the respondent Bank by filing a counter-affidavit. ( 4 ) PETITIONER has placed reliance on Regulation 27 of U. P. Co-operative societies Employees Services Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), the second Proviso whereof says that employees in category IV shall be considered for promotion to post in Category III under the proviso to Clause (I) only after they have put in continuous service on their post for a minimum period of five years and have passed the High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education u P. or any other examination equivalent thereto and recognized by the State Government. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on 31. 8. 1988 issued a circular prescribing Intermediate as the qualification for promotion of Class IV employees as Class III employees. This Circular has been filed as Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit The petitioners claim has been rejected on the basil of this Circular. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that this Circular could not override the provisions of the Regulations of 1975, which have been framed by the U. P. Co-operative institutional Board with the approval of the State Government under Section 122 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel has further submitted that the alleged Circular has not been published in officials gazette and for this reason also, the provisions contained in Regulation 27 prescribing High School as qualification must have been accepted and petitioners claim has been illegally rejected. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 3. 4. 1991 In case of Ved Prakash Sharma which has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Learned counsel has also cited number of cases for the proposition that a circular could not have statutory force and could not override the provisions of the Regulations having statutory force. However, it is not necessary to mention all the authorities cited by the learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel has also cited number of cases for the proposition that a circular could not have statutory force and could not override the provisions of the Regulations having statutory force. However, it is not necessary to mention all the authorities cited by the learned counsel for petitioner. The learned counsel has also cited certain authorities for the proposition that a mandamus can be Issued against the respondent-Bank under Article 226 of the Constitution by this Court. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent on the other hand, has submitted that Circular has been issued under Section 120 of the Act by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and it has statutory force as the legislature in its wisdom reserved this power with the Registrar to prescribe the qualifiestions for the officers of the Co-operative Societies from time to time and it cannot be said that the Circular has no statutory force. It has also been submitted that the provisions contained in Section 120 are special provisions whereas the provisions contained in Section 122 are general in nature and the order passed by the Registrar prescribing qualifications shall prevail over the Regulations framed under Section 122. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the judgment of this Court in case of Ved Prakash Sharma has been passed on the basis of the concession made on the part of the learned counsel for the respondent and there is no elaborate discussion of the Circular in context with the provisions under which it has been issued and its effect. It has been submitted that the judgment in the circumstances could not be cited as a precedent. The learned counsel has further placed reliance in case of Shyam Narain Pandey and others v. Assistant District Registrar Co-operative Societies, U. P. Varanasi, 1980 UPLBEC 195 (DB) ; Ram Chandra Dixit v. Dy Registrar Co-operative Societies, 1980 UPLBEC 325 and Ramesh Dutt Dixit v. State of UP. , and others, 1969 ALT 789. ( 7 ) I have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for parties In my opinion, the sole question for determination in this writ petition is as to whether petitioners claim for being promoted as Class III employees has been illegally rejected on the basis of the Circular dated 31. 8. 1988 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies prescribing intermediate as the minimum qualification for such promotion. 8. 1988 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies prescribing intermediate as the minimum qualification for such promotion. For determining this controversy the consideration of Sections 120, 121 and 122 is very necessary. Section 120 prescribes that no person shall be appointed by a Co-operative Society as Secretary Manager Accountant or as any other officer unless he possesses such qualifications as may be specified bv the Registrar from time to time in respect of any Co-operative Society or class of Societies. Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section provides that any person appointed in contravention of the provisions contained in sub-section (J) shall be liable to removal from the office of the Registrar. ( 8 ) SECTION 122, on the other hand, contemplates that the State Government may constitute an authority or authorities for recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of the Co-operative Societies and may require such authority to frame regulations regarding recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of service including the disciplinary control of such employees subject to the provisions contained in Secion 70 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 122 says that the Regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the approval of the State Government and shall, after such approval, be published in the gazette and take effect from the date of such publication and shall supersede any Regulations made under Section 121. A bare perusal of the provisions contained In Sections 120 and 122 makes it clear that so far as the qualigcations are concerned, the power has been left with the Registrar to prescribe the same from time to time The legislative intent is very clear as such qualifications could be required to be changed from time to time and in case the intention of the Legislature had been otherwise, there could have been no difficulty in mentioning Section 120 also along with Section 121 in sub-section (2) of Section 122. The fact that the Legislature has not required any particular mode of publication of the Circular under Section 120 cannot change its effect. The order passed by the Registrar under Section 120 prescribing the qualification will have statutory effect and It shall prevail over the initial qualifications prescribed under the Regulations. The submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner, In my opinion, have no substance. The order passed by the Registrar under Section 120 prescribing the qualification will have statutory effect and It shall prevail over the initial qualifications prescribed under the Regulations. The submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner, In my opinion, have no substance. The judgment of this Court in case of V. P. Sharma is based on concession made by the learned counsel for the respondents and cannot be used as precedent as it does not contain any discussion of the relevant provisions. This Court in case of Ramesh Dutt Dixit clearly held that the power to appoint Secretary under Section 122 is subject to Section 120 as well. In that case the appointment in question was with regard to secretary who was lacking qualifications prescribed under Section 120. Similarly, the Division Bench in the case of Shyam Narain Pandey and another did not accept the claim with regard to relaxation in the qualification as the order passed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies prescribing qualification did not contain any such provision and the Circular issued under Section 120 of the Act was held applicable over and above the Rules applicable with regard to the educational qualifications. The judgment of the Division Bench is squarley applicable to the facts of the present case. There cannot be any doubt that the Circular issued under Section 120 has statutory force and will prevail over the Regulations of 1975 so far as the qualifications are concerned. In my opinion, the impugned order dated 20. 2. 1992 is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not suffer any error of law. ( 9 ) THIS writ petition has no force and is accordingly rejected. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .