Judgment : The prayer made in this writ petition is to direct the respondents Viz., respondents 1 to 3 to comply with the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules in appointing a person to the post of Secretary of the third respondent-bank. The petitioner is an association of the employees of the Tamil Nadu State Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank. 2. The third respondent has filed counter. The fourth respondent who was impleaded subsequently on his own petition has also filed counter. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the recruitment to the post of Secretary is governed by Rule 149 and in case of direct appointment the provisions of 149(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, Rules 1983 have to be complied with before any valid appointment can be made to the post of Secretary. 4. The respondent/bank in its counter has stated that the only employee of the petitioner, in respect of whom the petitioner has claimed that he is a person qualified for being appointed as Secretary, one Anandraj had applied for this post and that as he had not completed five years of service he wasn’t eligible for promotion under Rule 149(d) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It is stated by the third respondent bank that the said Anandraj had filed a petition before the Joint Registr ar of Cooperative Societies in respect of rejection of his application for the post of Secretary and that the Joint Director rejected the application on 211. 1993 on the same ground on which the respondent bank had rejected the petition viz., that he had not completed five years service. In para 8 of the counter it is stated that of the two clerks who were in the employment of the bank one had been transferred to another Co- operative Bank and the remaining clerk was not qualified for the post of Secretary. The third respondent has stated that in this background the bank had to select a person from among those sponsored by the employment exchange. At the time to the hearing, counsel for the respondent-bank also produced a letter issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who had permitted the bank to resort to direct recruitment in the manner done by it. 5. At the time to the hearing, counsel for the respondent-bank also produced a letter issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who had permitted the bank to resort to direct recruitment in the manner done by it. 5. The recruitment has been effected by the bank has been by calling for the names from the employment exchange and then selecting persons after interviewing the candidates. The persons so selected is the fourth respondent. The method followed by the bank viz., calling for names from the employment exchange is perfectly in accordance with the rule 149(3)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. The grievance sought to be made out by the petitioner in the background of these facts is obviously not a general grievance in relation to principle, but appears to be one meant to advance the case of the Anantharaj who had not succeeded in his effort to be considered for appointment o his post. The general prayer made in the petition is ineffect merely to assert that the law should be complied with. Needless to say all persons are required to obey the law. The question is whether there is in fact any infraction of law such infraction has been pointed out. The omnibus prayer merely requiring the respondents to comply with the law is apparently meant to project individual grievance of one employee and nothing merit. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted at the time of hearing that the petition against the third respondent is not maintainable although no objection to that effect is taken in that affidavit filed on behalf of the bank. The question so raised is not one of law and in the light of the Full Bench decision of this court, the writ petition filed against the Co-operative Society is not maintainable. The third respondent was permitted to urge his point as well. The appointment of Secretary in the services of the third respondent bank is matter which pertains to the respondent bank the Secretary so appointed being an employee of the bank. The appointment, this, in effect is a matter which pertains to the affairs of the third respondent bank and its internal management. However, if is not necessary to dismiss this petition on the ground that it is not maintainable as even if it can be regarded as being maintainable, on merits, the petition has to be dismissed. The appointment, this, in effect is a matter which pertains to the affairs of the third respondent bank and its internal management. However, if is not necessary to dismiss this petition on the ground that it is not maintainable as even if it can be regarded as being maintainable, on merits, the petition has to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.