P. N. Nag,j. (Oral) ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged his order of termination of his services dated 23. 10. 1992 issued by respondentno. 3-Bank. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds. One of the grounds, amongst others, is of malafides of respondents 3 and 4. ( 2 ) SHOW cause notice was issued in this writ petition and counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 and a preliminary objections has been taken therein that respondent No. 3, i. e. . The Khattri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. is neither a State nor instrumentality of State within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, no writ petition is maintainable. A perusal of the writ petition shows that no foundation has been laid down by the petitioner to demonstrate that respondent is a State or instrumentality of State although it has been stated that respondents 3 and 4 are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is nothing to show that respondent No. 3 is a State and the preliminary objections raised by respondents 3 and 4 in the counter affidavit, therefore, is well founded. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 112 of 1993-Mrs. Kanak Rastogi v. the Delhj State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another- dated 27. 8. 1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. According to that judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is maintainable against the Cooperative Banks. We may notice that in that case respondent was Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and not respondent No. 3-Bank and that judgment is not applicable in the present case. In these circumstances, in our view, this writ petition is not maintainable. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the entire dues have not been paid by the respondents 3 and 4. Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 very fairly states that the same shall be paid within one week. She further states that in case the validity period of Pay Order has already expired and has not been encashed, the petitioner may present the same again to respondents 3 and 4 who will re-validate the same at the earliest possible. Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 very fairly states that the same shall be paid within one week. She further states that in case the validity period of Pay Order has already expired and has not been encashed, the petitioner may present the same again to respondents 3 and 4 who will re-validate the same at the earliest possible. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that a direction should be issued to the Lt. Governor to constitute a common service of officers and other employees of different classes of Cooperative Societies and to make rules for regulating the conditions of service of such employees as early as possible. In our Opinion, the question involved in the present case is only of termination of service of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 and this question of consistuting a common service of Cooperative Societies does not arise. However, we cannot help but express our view that in accordance with Section 96 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, the Lt. Governor should consider the question of consituting a common service of officers and other employees of different classes of Cooperative Societies as early as possible. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed.