JUDGMENT 1. - These four Special Appeals are arising out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.9.2007 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.3887 and 3888 of 2006 filed by respondent - Jodhpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. (Later styled as "the Bank"), whereby while allowing the writ petitions, the orders passed by the Minister for the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Cooperative Societies dated 21.2.2006 under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act of 2001", to hear the revision petitions filed by the appellant Vijay Kumar, were declared illegal and quashed and the respondent No.3, who was dismissed as Clerk cum Cashier cum Typist of the Bank vide orders dated 7.7.01 & 21.9.01 of both the writ petition and is also appellant in the aforesaid first two Special Appeals, was left with the liberty to avail the remedy for redressal of his grievance relating to the orders impugned in the revision petitions. 2. It is averred that the writ petitions of these Special Appeals were second in nature, as the earlier writ petitions being No.4848/04 and 4849/04 were disposed of on 17.11.05 by the learned Single Judge with the following order: "Both these Writ Petitions involve identical controversy were listed in the Court for admission on 03.11.2004, on which date notices were ordered to be issued thereafter on 12.04.2005 when the writ petition No.4848 was listed in the Court it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy which has been alleged in this writ petition is identical to S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2688/1998 - Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan decided on 07.05.2003 and D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.502/2003 Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan decided on 08.08.2003 . Therefore, the files of that writ petition and Special Appeal were ordered to be tagged with it and the writ petition was ordered to be listed alongwith the writ petition No.4849/2004. Today learned counsel for the respondent also agree with the aforesaid submission that the controversy alleged in the present writ petitions is covered by the two aforesaid judgments and further submitted that these judgments have been affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 05.01.2005 which is reported in (2005) 2 SCC 334 Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan . In that view of the matter for the same reasons these writ petitions are also disposed of granting/refusing the same reliefs as has been done in the aforesaid judgments." 3. When the earlier writ petitions were disposed-of, the reliance was placed on the decision of Ishwar Singh's case, as quoted in the above order, wherein it was held that the State Government was competent to revise the orders passed by the Registrar and Additional Registrar being officers subordinate. The Minister for the Department of Cooperatives, Government of Rajasthan, again started hearing of the above revision petitions and turned down the objections of the respondent - Bank, a Cooperative Bank registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (now the Act of 2001) on 21.2.2006 vide Annex.8 of the writ petition, which reads as under: "21.2.06 jktdh; vfHkHkk"kd mifLFkr A izkFkhZ vf/koDrk ,oa vizkFkhZ vf/koDrk mifLFkr A vizkFkhZ cSad vf/koDrk us mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ckn Hkh iqu% izdj.k dh xzkgrk ij iz'u fd;k A U;k;ky; us izdj.k dks xzkg; ekurs gq, vizkFkhZ cSad dh vkifr fujLr dh xbZ A izdj.k xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij lquokbZ gsrq vxyh rkjh[k is'kh 7-3-06 fu;r dh xbZ A cSad ds eq[; dk;Zdkjh dks O;fDrxr mifLFkfr ls NwV nh xbZ A gLrk{kj ,l-Mh-@& enu fnykoj** 4. Both these orders of the Minister were challenged in the alleged second Writ Petitions, which were disposed-of by the impugned judgment dated 11.9.07 as referred-to above. Against this judgment, these two Special Appeals have been filed by the Delinquent Vijay Kumar and remaining two Special Appeals by the respondent State. The necessity of filing two writ petitions was on account of dismissal of the appellant Vijay Kumar Sharma, Delinquent Officer, one by the order dated 7.7.01 (Annex.1) in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3887/06 and and another by the order dated 21.9.01 being Annex.1 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3888/06. These dismissal orders were passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Managing Director of the respondent Bank, which were confirmed in appeal by the Board of Directors vide Annex.2 of the said Writ Petitions on 19.1.2004. Against these orders of the appellate authority, the revisions were preferred under Section 107 of the Act of 2001 and the orders dated 21.2.2006 (Annex.8) are the impugned order of the Minister, who entertained the revision petitions in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in earlier writ petitions. Against these orders of the appellate authority, the revisions were preferred under Section 107 of the Act of 2001 and the orders dated 21.2.2006 (Annex.8) are the impugned order of the Minister, who entertained the revision petitions in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in earlier writ petitions. These orders passed in revision petitions were challenged in the writ petitions, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge, as referred-to above, against which these Special Appeals have been filed and are being disposed-of by this common judgment. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the law cited by them. 6. Broadly, it is contended by Mr.Ashok Chhangani,learned counsel for the appellant Vijay Kumar and Mr.G.R.Punia, learned Additional Advocate General for the State that in the earlier writ petitions filed by the respondent Bank against the orders of the Minister dated 21.9.04, Annex.5 in the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has already resolved the controversy on 17.11.05 vide Annex.6 of the said writ petitions in the light of Ishwar Singh's case, referred to above and now, the second Writ Petitions are barred by way of constructive res judicata. They have urged that the orders passed by the Minister dated 21.2.2006, Annex.8 of the writ petitions, are interlocutory orders and second writ petitions are not maintainable against the said orders. According to the learned counsel, it has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra) that the Registrar or the Addl.Registrar are subordinate to the State Government and the revision is maintainable under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, in short "the Act of 1965", before the State Government. In the cited case, it was also held that the State Government nowhere delegated revisional power to the Additional Registrar. Both the learned counsel have vehemently argued that under the scheme of the Old Act of 1965 and the present Act of 2001, officers of the Cooperative Societies including the Cooperative Bank and Board of Directors are subordinate to the Registrar or the Addl.Registrar, as the case may be and the Registrar is subordinate to the State Government. Both the learned counsel have vehemently argued that under the scheme of the Old Act of 1965 and the present Act of 2001, officers of the Cooperative Societies including the Cooperative Bank and Board of Directors are subordinate to the Registrar or the Addl.Registrar, as the case may be and the Registrar is subordinate to the State Government. According to them, when a subordinate authority passes any order, then it can very well be revised by the State Government under Section 128 of the Old Act of 1965 and under section 107 of the New Act of 2001, else the very purpose of enacting the Act would be frustrated in the larger public interest. While relying upon the various provisions of the Act of 2001, particularly sections 42, 44, 54 and 55, it has been further argued that though the Cooperative Society is autonomous and independent body but it is under the supervision and control of the Registrar and the State Government, as they are instrumentality and agency of the State for the purpose of part III of the Constitution of India, including the finance and its audit. According to them, taking away right of the State Government to revise the orders being the supervisory authority, will manifestly frustrate the aims and objects for which the Cooperative Societies are constituted. In this regard, learned counsel have placed reliance on the Notification No.F.12(15)/Co-op./2000/ Part-II, dated 10/11.6.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act of 2001 by the Cooperative Department of the State Government as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005) 2 SCC 334 ; Everest Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Bombay v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1966 SC 1449 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Phool Chand v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1985 RLR 365 . 7. Per contra, Mr.Arun Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has argued that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is in the right perspective of the law on Cooperative Societies. According to him, the subordination of the officers of the Coperative Society being an autonomous body constituted under the Act having its common seal with perpetual succession, is for a limited purpose and it cannot be termed as a subordinate body when exercising quasi-judicial functions. According to him, the subordination of the officers of the Coperative Society being an autonomous body constituted under the Act having its common seal with perpetual succession, is for a limited purpose and it cannot be termed as a subordinate body when exercising quasi-judicial functions. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the respondent Bank that Ishwar Singh's case (supra) upon which the learned Single Judge has disposed-of the earlier writ petitions, only refers to the subordination of the Addl.Registrar or the Registrar to the State Government and there is no reference in the said case that the officers of the Bank are subordinate to the State Government. While disposing of the earlier writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has not granted any relief by his order dated 17.11.05, Annex.6 of the writ petition but simply disposed-of the writ petitions by granting/refusing the same relief, which was not a speaking order laying down any law. That apart, the second writ petitions were against the later order of the Minister Incharge dated 21.2.06 (Annex.8), whereby he turned down the objections of the respondent Bank and entertained the revision petitions. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court viz; Alwar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan decided on 6.11.90 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.736/1981 and Jhunjhunu Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1977 Cooperative Law Journal 154. 8. Before dealing with the legal controversy with regard to the issues raised in these appeals, we would first like to deal with two preliminary objections as regards the order of the Minister dated 21.2.2006, Annex.8 being interlocutory and bar to file the writ petitions on the principle of constructive res judicata. 9. We have gone through both the orders Annex.8 dated 21.2.2006 and the earlier orders Annex.5 dated 21.9.04 passed by the Minister Incharge of the Cooperative Department of the State Government on revision petitions filed under Section 107 of the Act of 2001. 9. We have gone through both the orders Annex.8 dated 21.2.2006 and the earlier orders Annex.5 dated 21.9.04 passed by the Minister Incharge of the Cooperative Department of the State Government on revision petitions filed under Section 107 of the Act of 2001. In earlier orders Annex.5 of the writ petitions, the objection regarding the jurisdiction was turned down by the Minister and revisions were found fit for hearing, which were challenged before this Court and the learned Single Judge passed the order dated 17.11.05, Annex.6, whereby the writ petition was disposed of granting/refusing the same reliefs in the light of Ishwar Singh's case (supra) without laying down any law. The second orders of the Minister, which are under challenge in these writ petitions is Annex.8 dated 21.2.2006 and this order has been passed by the Minister Incharge in the light of the aforesaid judgment (Annex.6 dated 17.11.05) of this Court, wherein the Minister found the matter fit for hearing. These orders were challenged in the second writ petitions in which the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge was of the view that the Cooperative Society may be an instrumentality or an agency of the State Government for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution of India by virtue of financial and administrative control of the State Govt., but in no way, it can be termed as a department or as a body subordinate to the State Government, because a Cooperative Society in itself is an autonomous body constituted for specific objects and its officers are accountable to the Cooperative Society only and not to the State Government or the Registrar. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that the Board of Directors and the Managing Director of the Cooperative Bank are not officers subordinate to the Registrar or the State Government, therefore, no revision petition under Section 107 of the Act of 2001 could have been entertained by the Minister giving challenge to the order passed by the managing Director in capacity of Disciplinary Authority and by the Board of Directors in capacity of an appellate authority. While referring the decision in Ishwar Singh's case (supra), it was held by the learned Single Judge that in that case, it was held that the State Government was having the power to revise the orders passed by its officers subordinate, whereas the officers of the Bank are not subordinate to the State Government. As observed by the learned Single Judge, in the earlier writ petitions based on Ishwar Singh's case (supra), it was nowhere decided that the officers of the Bank are subordinate to the State Government or to the Registrar and no such presumption can be drawn by this judgment on the question of subordination. 10. It is settled principle of law that any authority acting beyond jurisdiction or its jurisdiction has been questioned, the order cannot be said to be interlocutory order. The interlocutory order is one where the rights of the parties are finally adjudicated upon. Any plea questioning the jurisdiction of the authority upon the matter in issue and passing order thereon by such authority that it has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute or has no jurisdiction, it cannot be said that it is an interlocutory order because by taking or denying the jurisdiction which the authority is not competent or its competency respectively is under challenge, it cannot be termed as interlocutory order. As in the present case, overruling the objection of jurisdiction and to continue with the matter, amounts to giving finality on the matter in issue, which cannot be termed as an interlocutory one. We accordingly overrule this objection as regards the impugned order being interlocutory one. 11. The second objection is with regard to the plea of constructive res judicata. As observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that earlier it was nowhere decided that the officers of the Bank are subordinate to the State Government or to the Registrar and it was held in Ishwar Singh's case (supra) that the State Government is having the power to revise the orders passed by its officers subordinate, therefore, the learned Single Judge observed that the objection regarding the constructive res judicata is misconceived. We have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra). We have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra). In this case, the Chief Executive Officer of the Sadul Shahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti permanently retired its Manager on account of continuous fall in his work performance under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The delinquent employee, who was a Manager of the Samiti preferred a revision petition before the Additional Registrar II of the Cooperative Societies, Govt. of Rajasthan, who allowed the revision on the ground that Rule 244(2) of the said Rules is not applicable and the employees of the Cooperative Societies are governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966, wherein approval of the Registrar is a condition precedent for the premature retirement. The employer - Society challenged the decision of the Additional Registrar by way of revision before the State Government under Section 128 of the Old Act of 1965, which found that the revision before the Additional Registrar was not competent. The Secretary of the Department found that the revision before the Additional Registrar was not competent as the order was passed by the Administrator who was not an officer subordinate to the Registrar. The order of the Additional Registrar was set aside. That order was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Additional Registrar had exercised the delegated power of the Registrar and not of the State Government and, therefore, the revision before the State Govt. is maintainable and the Secretary had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In any event, the Additional Registrar could not have entertained the revision. In appeal before this Court, it was held that under Section 128 of the Act of 1965, revisional power can be exercised by two authorities i.e. the Government and the Registrar. The decision of the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it was contended that if one authority has exercised the revisional power, the other authority logically could not have exercised that power i.e. second revision was not maintainable but the Hon'ble Supreme Court while affirming the decision of the Division Bench held that when the Secretary had clearly observed that the Additional Registrar has no power to entertain the revision being the authority exercising delegated power of the Registrar and not of the State Government. While discussing the scope of the word "delegate" with the help of various English Dictionaries and decisions, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the State Government nowhere delegated revisional power to the Additional Registrar and the State Government is competent to entertain the further revision petition. Precisely in the cited case, the Additional Registrar was not competent authority to decide the revision being the further delegated authority and if any order has been passed by him being subordinate to the State Government, further revision before the State Government is maintainable. 12. To elaborate, we may add the latin maxim "delegatus non potest delegate" i.e. delegated authority further cannot delegate the power. That apart in the cited case of Ishwar Singh, there were no separate service rules for the employees of the Cooperative Department but the Board of Directors of the Society adopted the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 by resolution dated 4.5.77 and the Registrar vide notification dated 3.8.80, made applicable the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.& A) Rules, 1958 by virtue of Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966, wherein the conditions of service of the employees of the Societies were such as specified by the Registrar subject to applicability of the RSR and CCA Rules in which no provision was shown to us, whereby any employee was having an opportunity to file an appeal, therefore, the State Government entertained the revision. Whereas in the present case, the delinquent appellant Vijay Kumar is employee of the Cooperative Bank for which separate service rules have been framed by the Cooperative Department of the State Government, which have been titled as the Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules, 1987, notified under Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Service Rules, 1987 and have been made applicable from 1s t July, 1987. In these Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is the Chief Executive Officer of the Institution and the appellate authority is the Board of Directors and in these Rules, there is no provision for second appeal. In these Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is the Chief Executive Officer of the Institution and the appellate authority is the Board of Directors and in these Rules, there is no provision for second appeal. When there are separate Service Rules governing the bank employees of the Cooperative Bank and there is a power of appeal in contrast to Ishwar Singh's case (supra), wherein the delinquent employee was the Manager of the Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti, where RSR was made applicable and there was no right of appeal except revision before the Registrar or the State Government, it cannot be said that these second writ petitions questioning the second order of the Minister Annex.8 dated 21.2.2006 relying upon the aforesaid decision in Ishwar Singh's case (supra) can be termed as a constructive res judicata. 13. The rule of res judicata is not applicable on decisions of pure questions of law, particularly of jurisdiction of Court. If the earlier judgment is contrary to existing law at the time the issue comes up for reconsideration, then it cannot be said that it is barred by the principle of res judicata. Explanation VIII of Section of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly denotes that issue should have been heard and finally decided by a Court of jurisdiction. In our view, the earlier decision of this Court Annex.6 dated 17.11.2005 was nothing but disposal of the writ petitions in the light of Ishwar singh's case (supra) by observing as "disposed-of granting/refusing the same reliefs in the light of Ishwar Singh's case (supra)". We are surprised as to how this language of the impugned order Annex.6 can be termed as final adjudication on the issue, especially when there are separate set of Rules for the Cooperative Bank Employees. 14. The doctrine of constructive res judicata applies when any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground for defence or attack in such former suit as provided for under Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure . For its application, the identity of issues is necessary and not the identity of the subject matter. When there is no correct interpretation of a Statute in the earlier decision then the principle of constructive res judicata does not come in. For its application, the identity of issues is necessary and not the identity of the subject matter. When there is no correct interpretation of a Statute in the earlier decision then the principle of constructive res judicata does not come in. The constructive res judicata is based on the doctrine only if the party is supposed to or ought to have made a ground of defence in the earlier suit. In the earlier writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge vide Annex.6 in which reliance has been placed on Ishwar Singh's case (supra), is not based on the separate Service Rules like the Bank Employees Rules of 1987 as are made applicable in the present case and there was no power of appeal to the employee vis a vis the Additional Registrar, who passed the order, was subordinate to the Registrar and the State Government. There was also no issue involved in Ishwar Singh's case that whether the officer and Managing Director of the Bank are subordinate to the State Government. Though we will discuss this issue hereinafter but for the purpose of constructive res judicata, we see no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and hold that the said second writ petitions of the impugned judgment are not barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. 15. Coming to the core controversy of invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 107 of the Act of 2001 corresponding to Section 128 of the Old Act of 1965, it is undoubtedly clear that the Registrar and the State Government can exercise the power of revision to the extent as provided-for, in the law. The relevant Section 107 of the Act of 2001 reads as under: "S.107. The relevant Section 107 of the Act of 2001 reads as under: "S.107. Power of revision of the Government and the Registrar.-(1) The Registrar, in case where action has been taken by any officer subordinate to the Registrar and the State Government, in case where action has been taken by the Registrar, may, on their own motion or on an application of any aggrieved person, call for and examine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings of all such matters in which an action has been taken under this Act, except those in which an appeal lies to the Tribunal, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. If in any case, it appears to the State Government or the Registrar, that any decision or order or proceeding so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may after giving persons affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he thinks just: Provided that every application to the Registrar or the State Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant: Provided further that the Registrar shall not exercise the powers under this sub-section in case in which an appeal lies to him under this Act. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, every person appointed to assist the Registrar and exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar under Sub-section(2) of Section 4, shall be deemed subordinate to the Registrar. (2) Pending the hearing under Sub-section(1), the State Government or the Registrar may pass such interlocutory order as it or he thinks fit to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated." 16. Under Sub-section(1) of this Section, the Registrar, in case where action has been taken by any officer subordinate to him and the State Government in case where action has been taken by the Registrar, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceeding except those in which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. Under Sub-section(1) of this Section, the Registrar, in case where action has been taken by any officer subordinate to him and the State Government in case where action has been taken by the Registrar, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceeding except those in which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. Under its Explanation, every person appointed to assist the Registrar under sub-section(2) of Section 4 shall be deemed subordinate to the Registrar. Learned counsel for the appellants have drawn our attention towards the Notification of the State Government dated 10/11.6.03 as referred-to above, whereby the Government has delegated the powers to the Chief Executive Officer of the Urban Cooperative Bank entered at S.No.19 with regard to sections 99 and 100 of the Act of 2001, though it has later been withdrawn vide another notification dated 7.7.09. These powers are relating only to Sections 99 and 100 of the Act. Section 99 deals with the Enforcement of charge relating to debt or outstanding demand due to the Society by sale of the property or any interest therein which is mortgaged to the Society or is subject to a charge under section 38 or sec.39. Section 100 deals with the Execution of orders passed by the Registrar under sections 57, 99, 60, 64, 105 and 106 of the Act. These two Sections are not relating to the service matters. Merely because the State Govt. has empowered an officer of the Bank to exercise the power of the Registrar by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Act, it cannot be said that he is subordinate to the Registrar or the State Government for all purposes. 17. The word " subordinate" is not confined to review or revise every order. In generality, supervisory control or administrative control is termed as "subordination" but when an authority is exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions, though he might be under subordination of the higher authority on administrative side, it cannot be termed as a "subordination". To quote the example of the Constitution of India under Article 235 with regard to supervision and control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary, but that supervision and control has to be exercised on the constitutional and functional aspects of the courts but not for the purpose of judicial review of every order or decision. To quote the example of the Constitution of India under Article 235 with regard to supervision and control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary, but that supervision and control has to be exercised on the constitutional and functional aspects of the courts but not for the purpose of judicial review of every order or decision. Judicial review is permissible within the framework of law and the Constitution. When under the Old Act of 1965, separate Service Rules have been framed in 1987 for the Cooperative Bank Employees and under the Disciplinary Action and Appeal Rules, disciplinary authority is the Chief Executive Officer and the appellate authority is the Board of Directors and there is no separate provision for the second appeal then it cannot be said that the authorities of the Bank, which are exercising quasi judicial powers under these Bank Service Rules are subordinate to the Registrar or the State Government. Their subordination might be under other provisions of the Act of 2001 like financial partnership under section 44, audit under section 54 and enquiry under section 55 etc. As far as Section 107 which deals with the power of revision, is concerned, it empowers the Registrar in the matter of officers subordinate to him and to the State Govt., in the case of Registrar to call for and examine the record of any enquiry or proceeding but this provides for all such matters in which the action has been taken under this Act except where an appeal lies in the Tribunal. Ofcourse, in the present case, there is no provision for appeal to the Tribunal, but second proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 107 of the Act of 2001 further says that Registrar shall not exercise the powers under this sub-section in which an appeal lies to him. Though no appeal lies to him but there is a provision of appeal before the Board of Directors. The word "enquiry" or the "proceeding" denotes only to those matters which are not derived from other source except under the Act. When there is a subordinate legislation like the separate Rules under the Act and the Act is not overriding those Rules, the Rules shall prevail. This is the cardinal principle of interpretation of Statute. The words have to be used in the context of which they are framed. When there is a subordinate legislation like the separate Rules under the Act and the Act is not overriding those Rules, the Rules shall prevail. This is the cardinal principle of interpretation of Statute. The words have to be used in the context of which they are framed. The court cannot inject or omit the words of Statute by giving interpretation, which suits to a party. 18. Now the State Government has further amended the Employees Rules of 1987 by substituting the Rules of 2006 but we are concerned with the Old Rules of 1987 under which the present controversy is travelling. When the rule which is not derogatory to the Statute and has not been a subject of challenge, its true spirit has to be looked into. Under these Rules, when the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority are exercising quasi judicial functions and there is no provision for revision then under the garb of Section 107, which is a general law on the Cooperative Societies, the court cannot take its words to empower a Registrar or the Minister to exercise the power under Section 107 of the Act for revision, especially when the State Government while exercising the powers under Section 123 of the Act of 2001 has framed separate rules to carry out the purpose of this Act for a class of Cooperative Society i.e. Cooperative Bank Employees. Even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that these Rules are silent so far as the revision is concerned then as envisaged under the new Rules of Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Rules of 2006. Section 33 which deals with the interpretation clause, says that if any doubt arises with regard to the interpretation of these Rules or the Rules are silent on any matter, the provisions of R.S.R., Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules and Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958 shall apply mutatis mutandis in so far as they are not contrary to these Rules. If the appellants feel that the Service Rules of 1987 and of 2006 are silent on the point of revision or review, they are free to invoke the remedy, if available, under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958 or to avail any other remedy for redressal of his grievance as observed by the learned Single Judge. 19. 19. Before concluding, we would like to discuss two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. First is the case of Everest Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra). This was a case relating to the exercise of powers under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. In the cited case, the matter was relating to the membership of the Housing Society, in which the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies rejected the application for membership. The Society filed an application before the State Government for revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, which was not entertained being the order final, passed under Section 23(3) of the Act. The Society preferred a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition but in Special Leave to Appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Government should welcome such applications as the jurisdiction is vested with the Government under Section 154 of the Act by holding that the finality of the order under Section 23(3) of the Act does not restrict the exercise of the power. It was further held that the word "final" in this context means that the order is not subject to an ordinary appeal or revision but it does not touch special power legislatively conferred on the Government. 20. In Phool Chand's case (supra), it was held that the Central Co-operative Bank, Bharatpur is the instrumentality of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution and a writ petition can be entertained, but the objection of the learned Addl. Advocate General with regard to filing revision under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 was overruled on the ground that the validity of the relevant Rules was challenged by the petitioner in which the State Government and the Registrar were not competent to decide. The cited case was relating to compulsory retirement of the petitioners under Co- operative Societies Service Rules of 1966, in which, there was no provision for appeal and the appeals were allowed by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the citations referred to above are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 21. The cited case was relating to compulsory retirement of the petitioners under Co- operative Societies Service Rules of 1966, in which, there was no provision for appeal and the appeals were allowed by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the citations referred to above are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 21. The view expressed by us with regard to the power of Minister to entertain a revision under Section 107 of the Act in the matter of Cooperative Bank Employees, has already been taken way back by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.736/1981 decided on 6.11.90 (The Alwar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & anr.) by the then Hon'ble Sh.M.B.Sharma J. by relying upon the judgment of Jhunjhunu Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1839/1972 decided on 22nd Sept., 1980 by the then Hon'ble Sh.S.C.Agrawal J. that Administrator of the Bank is not subordinate to the State Govt. or the Registrar to hear the Revision under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 against the dismissal of a Cooperative Bank employee but the revision filed against the order of Registrar is maintainable. These two judgments were delivered prior to the framing of the Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules, 1987, wherein appellate authority, as in the present case, is Board of Directors against the decision given by the Chief Executive Officer, which has been made final by using the word "shall". These rules have been further amended by Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Rules, 2006 with same power of the Disciplinary authority& Appellate authority. Before these Rules of 1987 & 2006, the Cooperative Bank employees were governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966, wherein Registrar was the competent authority for all categories of officers & employees relating to their service conditions. 22. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that no power lies to the Minister Incharge, Department of Cooperative Societies of the State to entertain revision under Section 107 of the Act of 2001 where a right of appeal has been provided for under the separate Service Rules of 1987 & 2006 of the Co-operative Bank Employees, whose matters have been disposed of by the Competent Authority while exercising quasi judicial functions. 23. 23. Consequently, we affirm the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.09.2007 and dismiss all these four appeals with no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******