JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner has approached this court for grant of following substantive reliefs :- (i) For directing the respondents to hold review DPC within a time bound schedule by ensuring that no Grade 1 officer is superseded in his promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager by another officer where the difference of length of promotion between the two officers in feeder category is more than 2 years. (ii) For holding that supercession by respondents No. 4-6 over the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager is bad in eyes of law considering the difference between their length of promotion in feeder category of Grade 1 is more than 2 years vis-à-vis the petitioner. (iii) For directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant General Manager w.e.f. the date his juniors have been promoted i.e. 7.2.2014 along with all consequential including monetary benefits. (iv) For directing the respondents to read the over all entry of ACR of the petitioner for the year 2008-09 & 2011-12 as 'Very Good’ or alternatively the entries in these ACRs be directed to be communicated to the petitioner and thereafter action in accordance with law may be directed to be taken on the un-communicated ACRs. (v) For issuing a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the proceedings of DPC as convened on 31.1.2014 vide annexure P-4 and all consequential actions thereupon vis-à-vis parties to the litigation. 2. From the perusal of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, it is clear that the relief has been sought primarily against respondent No.1, which is a Cooperative Society registered under the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (for short, the Act). 3. The parties are not at variance that in view of decisions of learned Division Bench of this court in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra vs. H.P.State Coop. Bank and others 1993 (2) Sim.L.C. 243, Sanjeev Kumar & ors. Vs. State of H.P. and ors. CWP No. 6709 of 2013-A dated 4.8.2014, LPA No. 236 of 2011 titled Laxmi Narain & ors. Vs. Kuldeep Singh & ors alongwith connected matters decided on 17.9.2014, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S.Rana vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and another (2006) 11 SCC 634 and the decision of Hon’ble Full Bench of this court in Vikram Chauhan vs. The Managing Director and ors. Vs. Kuldeep Singh & ors alongwith connected matters decided on 17.9.2014, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S.Rana vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and another (2006) 11 SCC 634 and the decision of Hon’ble Full Bench of this court in Vikram Chauhan vs. The Managing Director and ors. Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 742 (FB), the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a request for relegating the petitioner to the Registrar so as to enable him to file a petition under section 72 of the Act. The petitioner has made this request taking cue from para-9 of preliminary objection raised by respondents No. 1 and 2 to the following effect:- “The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 72 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968. Being a matter touching the business of the society, the grievance, if any, has got to be vindicated by having recourse to the said provisions only.” 5. I am afraid that this court cannot relegate the petitioner to pursue the remedy under section 72 of the Act, which is in fact not available to him under the law. This aspect of the matter has been succinctly dealt with by the learned Division Bench of this court in Sanjeev Kumar’s case (supra), wherein it was held as follows:- “9. “Faced with such situation, the petitioners would then contend that the orders passed by the Registrar and thereafter by the State government were statutory and therefore, a writ against an order passed by the statutory authority was maintainable. 10. There would have been no dispute in case the orders impugned herein could be termed to have been passed by the statutory authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Act and Rules, because in that event undisputedly the writ petition would be maintainable before this court. However, the moot question again herein is as to whether the orders passed by the respondents i.e. Registrar and the State Government can be termed to be statutory orders. 11. Admittedly, the dispute raised by the petitioners pertained to a service matter and therefore, even if this court had relegated the petitioners to the Registrar/ State government, could the orders be termed to be in exercise of the statutory powers? The obvious answer is no, for more than one reasons. 11. Admittedly, the dispute raised by the petitioners pertained to a service matter and therefore, even if this court had relegated the petitioners to the Registrar/ State government, could the orders be termed to be in exercise of the statutory powers? The obvious answer is no, for more than one reasons. Firstly, the dispute of an employee and employer relationship is not a dispute, which touches the constitution, management or business of the cooperative societies and therefore, is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Registrar under section 72 of the Act [Re: Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Morinda Coop.Sugar Mills Workers’ Union (2006) 6 SCC 80 ]. Secondly even if this court had relegated the petitioners before the Registrar/ State government, the orders passed by them would not clothe the orders so passed with statutory colour, as the same are not in exercise of statutory powers conferred upon them under the provisions of the Act and Rules as held in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra (supra).” 6. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, even this prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. Pending application, if any also stands disposed of.