JUDGMENT An advertisement was issued for the appointment of a Senior Branch Manager in the District Cooperative Bank by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow on 11 February 1977. The appellant was directed to join training as a Branch Manager in February and March 1978. The post of the Senior Branch Manager in Group II banks carried a pay scale at the material time of Rs. 250-500 while the pay scale of Junior Branch Managers in Group I was Rs. 250-650. On 10 March 1978, the appellant was selected by the Board for the post of Senior Branch Manager. At that stage, the appellant submitted an undertaking on 10 March 1978 that he was ready and willing to work on the post of Junior Branch Manager in a Group I bank. The appellant joined service in that capacity. 2. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking the enforcement of a recommendation made by the Chairman of the bank on 19 January 1993 and a mandamus for being paid his salary as Senior Branch Manager with effect from January 1993. The Chairman of the bank, as it appears from the record, had issued a recommendation on 19 January 1993 to the Secretary of the District Cooperative Bank to the effect that having due regard to the work and conduct of the appellant, it would be appropriate to grant him the salary on the post of Senior Branch Manager but his absorption would be in line with the appointment which had already taken place and that he would not be entitled to any arrears. This issue, as the record would indicate, had engaged the attention of the Institutional Service Board. On 5 June 1990, the Board had taken a decision that since sanctioned posts were not available, the persons who had been appointed as Junior Branch Managers and had, in pursuance of the selection, accepted their appointments as such, could not be appointed on the post of Senior Branch Manager. Moreover, it appears that on 21 June 1993, the same view was reiterated by the Additional Registrar (Banking), Cooperative Societies, Lucknow following the decision of the Institutional Service Board dated 5 June 1990. In July 2009, the Board reiterated its earlier position. 3. Moreover, it appears that on 21 June 1993, the same view was reiterated by the Additional Registrar (Banking), Cooperative Societies, Lucknow following the decision of the Institutional Service Board dated 5 June 1990. In July 2009, the Board reiterated its earlier position. 3. The learned Single Judge, while holding that the petition could not be entertained, came to the conclusion that the substantive appointment of the appellant was on the post of Junior Branch Manager and he was never appointed on the post of Senior Branch Manager. In the view of the learned Single Judge, the appellant had never challenged his appointment as Junior Branch Manager and it would be too late in the day to permit the appellant to raise any claim regarding his initial appointment since he had worked for more than fifteen years when the petition was filed. In the meantime, the appellant had already superannuated during the pendency of the proceedings. 4. The writ petition was filed in 1993 in order to seek enforcement of a recommendation made by the Chairman of the bank on 19 January 1993 to the Secretary. The recommendation was not backed by a resolution of the bank or its Committee of Management. 5. Be that as it may, the reliefs which were sought in the writ petition could not have been entertained since, by the time the petition was instituted, nearly fifteen years had elapsed since the appointment of the appellant on the post of Junior Branch Manager. The appellant had accepted the appointment and had, in fact, furnished an undertaking on 10 March 1978. 6. In the counter affidavit which was filed by the District Cooperative Bank, it was stated as follows: "The petitioner was declared successful for the post of Senior Branch Manager of Group II bank whose pay scale at that time was Rs. 250-500 while the pay scale of Junior Branch Manager Group-I bank was Rs. 250-650. Thus, the post of Senior Branch Manager of Group-II bank was equivalent to Junior Branch Manger of Group-I Bank. The petitioner was selected by the Board of the post of Senior Branch Manager Group-II Bank on 10.3.1978. The petitioner himself gave undertaking and explanation for willingness to join on the post of Junior Branch Manager Group-I Bank. 250-650. Thus, the post of Senior Branch Manager of Group-II bank was equivalent to Junior Branch Manger of Group-I Bank. The petitioner was selected by the Board of the post of Senior Branch Manager Group-II Bank on 10.3.1978. The petitioner himself gave undertaking and explanation for willingness to join on the post of Junior Branch Manager Group-I Bank. It is incorrect to pay that the Respondent no.2 forced the petitioner to submit his joining report as Junior Branch Manager in Group-I Bank. It is also incorrect to say that the petitioner was given undertaking that if the vacancy of the post of Senior Branch Manager arise the petitioner will get chance to be absorbed. On other hand the petitioner himself requested for joining on the post of Junior Branch Manager and at that time the pay scale of Junior Branch Manager Group-I bank and Senior Branch Manager Group-II Bank was merely the same. The petitioner submitted his joining report as Junior Branch Manager in District Cooperative Bank Saharanpur himself without any pressure of the Respondents." 7. In his rejoinder affidavit to the aforesaid averment, the appellant claimed that his initial appointment on the post of Junior Branch Manager was contrary to the selection and the advertisement. This was not the relief which the appellant claimed in the writ petition and, in any event, even such a claim for challenging the nature of his appointment, could not have been entertained in 1993 when the petition was filed against his appointment in 1978. 8. For these reasons, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3 December 2015 does not suffer from any error. 9. Lastly, it was urged that under Rule 130 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, it is open to the Secretary of the Cooperative Society, where he is of the opinion that a resolution passed by the Committee of Management or an order of an officer of the Cooperative Society is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or Bye Laws and the Chairman fails to make a reference to the Registrar to himself do so. Where the Secretary has not received an intimation from the Registrar within the stipulated period, the Secretary shall not withhold the implementation of the resolution. Where the Secretary has not received an intimation from the Registrar within the stipulated period, the Secretary shall not withhold the implementation of the resolution. In the present case, this would not come to the aid of the appellant for the simple reason that the Board had carried out the entire process of selection that upon considering the request of the appellant it had repeatedly held that it was not possible to accede to that request. This is not a situation where the resolution of the general body of a society or of an officer of the society was to be called into question. 10. For these reasons, we see no reason to entertain the special appeal. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.