Govind Mathur, J.—By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the instructions given by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner under a communication dt. 19.05.2001 to the petitioner to reemploy respondent No.4 Shri Raj Kumar Sethi as Class-IV employee till a final decision is taken by a selection committee about his re-employment in service of the petitioner as a Class-IV employee. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition for writ are that respondent No.4 Shri Raj Kumar Sethi was in employment of the petitioner in the capacity of a clerk, however, by an order dt. 14.11.1988 passed by the General Manager of the petitioner society he was dismissed from service being found guilty for a serious misconduct i.e. of misappropriation of funds. A challenge was given by the respondent No.4 to the order of dismissal by way of raising an industrial dispute that ultimately culminated into an award dt. 21.02.1998 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner holding therein the dismissal legal and justified. 3. After getting the award from the Labour Court the respondent No.4 preferred a revision petition under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1965”) before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies giving challenge to the order dt. 14.11.1988 dismissing him from service but the revision petition stood rejected by an order dt. 15.03.1999 being not maintainable. The revisional authority left it open for the respondent No.4 to raise his cause before the appellate authority (Selection Committee). An appeal, therefore, was filed by the respondent No.4 before the Selection Committee that met on 27.06.2000 and decided to make request to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to create a post of Class-IV employee enabling the petitioner society to re-employ the respondent No.4. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner by order impugned dt. 19.05.2001 directed the petitioner to re-employ the respondent No.4 as Class-IV employee till a decision is taken by the Registrar for creation of the post. Aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 4. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Joint Registrar was having no authority to instruct the petitioner society to re-employ the respondent No.4 as Class-IV employee. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 by order dt. Aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 4. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the Joint Registrar was having no authority to instruct the petitioner society to re-employ the respondent No.4 as Class-IV employee. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 by order dt. 14.11.1988 was dismissed from service of the petitioner society and as such there was no question of his re-employment even as a Class-IV employee. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan as well as by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner Division, Bikaner. No reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondent No.4. The respondent No.2 i.e. the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in quite unambiguous terms accepted in reply to the writ petition that he was having no power and jurisdiction to issue any orders under the Act of 1965 instructing the petitioner society to re-employ the respondent No.4. The counsel for the respondent No.4 also failed to point out any power with the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies under the Act of 1965 or the Rules framed thereunder to instruct the petitioner society as an interim measure to re-employ the respondent No.4 as a Class-IV employee. On basis of admission of the respondent No.4 that he was having no authority to pass an order like the order impugned, this petition deserves acceptance. 6. I also found substance in second contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was dismissed from service of the petitioner society and the termination of service by way of dismissal always puts a bar for re-employment of the employee facing the punishment of dismissal. In view of it, even resolution undertaken by the society to re-employ the respondent No.4 as Class-IV employee is bad in eye of law. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition for writ is allowed. The direction given by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies under communication dt. 19.05.2001 to the petitioner society to re-employ respondent No.4 Shri Raj Kumar Sethi is quashed. 8. No order to costs. * * * * *