P. C. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who holds the post of a Junior Plant operator (Boiler) in the Milk Chilling Centre at Sillisuam in the district of keonjhar, has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ, direction or order commanding the opposite parties to confirm his services as Plant operator (Boiler) with effect from 1. 5. 1992 and for a further direction to the said opposite parties to pay him all arrear salary in the scale of pay of a Plant operator (Boiler) from 1. 5. 1992 together with all service benefits to which he may be entitled as such. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that after completing his High School certificate Examination, he underwent training as Boiler Attendant and pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Keonjhar District Co-operative milk Producers Union Limited (in short, 'k. D. C. M. P. U. Ltd. '), he was sponsored for the post of Boiler Attendant. He appeared in an interview on 30. 6. 1988 and on being found suitable, was appointed as a Plant Operator (Boiler)apprentice vide appointment letter dated 13. 10. 1988 (Annexure-1 ). The petitioner joined as an Apprentice on 1. 11. 1988 and successfully completed the necessary training. According to the petitioner, though the period of probation expired on 1. 11. 1989, he was not confirmed and the opposite parties kept extending the probation period from time to time, the final extension being for a period of three months vide order dated 10. 7. 1990. During the period, submits the petitioner, he worked satisfactorily and discharged the additional duties and responsibilities of testing the milk samples and running the Boiler twice a week. But. inspite of this, instead of giving him appointment as a Plant Operator he was given appointment in a lower post, i. e. Junior Plant operator (Boiler) carrying a lower scale of pay. The further case of the petitioner is that the action of the opposite parties is discriminatory and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the constitution of India. According to him, as there is no such post of Junior plant Operator (Boiler) in the plant and moreover, as he had been initially appointed as a Plant Operator (Boiler) Apprentice, after probation, he was entitled to be appointed to the post of Plant Operator (Boiler) with all such benefits attached thereto. According to him, as there is no such post of Junior plant Operator (Boiler) in the plant and moreover, as he had been initially appointed as a Plant Operator (Boiler) Apprentice, after probation, he was entitled to be appointed to the post of Plant Operator (Boiler) with all such benefits attached thereto. As his request for proper appointment was not considered, the petitioner submitted a written representation on 30. 1. 1995 but the same having not been attended to, he was obliged to approach this court. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE party No. 2. the General Manager of the K. D. C. M. P. U. Ltd. has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition. A preliminary objection has been raised that the K. D. C. M. P. U. Ltd. being a registered Co-operative Society under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. 1962, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further averred that the Society is governed by the General Body and the State has no major control, neither financial nor administrative, over the Society. The petition is also opposed on the ground of laches and delay. ( 4 ) DENYING the averment of the petitioner that he had successfully completed the training and the probation period, it is stated that as the petitioner's work was not found satisfactory, the period of apprenticeship of the petitioner was extended for a period of six months from 30. 10. 1989 to 30. 4. 1990 vide office order dated 10. 7. 1999 (Annexure-C/2 ). In the said order, according to opposite party No. 2. it was clearly mentioned that his work was not satisfactory and that he had not acquired sufficient knowledge for independent maintenance of the Boiler and Shift duty and this letter clearly indicates about the non-satisfactory work of the petitioner during his apprenticeship and hence it was mentioned that if he improves, his case may be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Boiler Operator in the scale of pay of Rs. 960-1410/ -. According to the opposite parties, the petitioner was ultimately appointed as a Junior Plant Operator (Boiler) on 11. 9. 1990 with a condition that he shall be under probation for a period of one year with effect from 1. 8. 1990. 960-1410/ -. According to the opposite parties, the petitioner was ultimately appointed as a Junior Plant Operator (Boiler) on 11. 9. 1990 with a condition that he shall be under probation for a period of one year with effect from 1. 8. 1990. But, even in this post, his performance was not found to be satisfactory and as such, the probation period was again extended from time to time and finally, vide order dated 4. 5. 1992 (Annexure-4), his services as a Junior Plant Operator (Boiler) were confirmed. The opposite parties do not dispute that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Plant Operator (Boiler) Apprentice. However, it is submitted that, as the petitioner had not acquired sufficient knowledge for independent maintenance of Boiler, which is clearly evident from the fact that his period of probation was extended time and again, he was not considered eligible to hold the independent charge of a plant Operator and as such, he was offered the post of a Junior Plant Operator and the petitioner having accepted the same, cannot at this stage challenge the same. As regards the contention of the petitioner that as per the Job Chart, the post held by him does not exist, it is submitted by the counsel for the opposite parties that as the petitioner was not appointed to the post of Plant Operator (Boiler) nor was appointed to the post of Junior Plant Operator, the same (i. e. Plant Operator) cannot be claimed by him through such a post exists. It may be mentioned that in the counter-affidavit the opposite parties admit that the activities of the K. D. C. M. P. U. Ltd. , have been taken over by the OMFED and now it is known as "the Keonjhar Project OMFED". The employees have been deputed to the project with the deponent as the General Manager. It is also stated that a Memorandum of Understanding has also been signed between the K. D. C. M. P. U. Ltd. and the Keonjhar Project OMFED. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that vide appointment letter dated 13. 10. 1988 (Annexure-1) the petitioner was offered an appointment to the post of "plant operator (Boiler) (Apprentice)" at the consolidated stipend of Rs. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that vide appointment letter dated 13. 10. 1988 (Annexure-1) the petitioner was offered an appointment to the post of "plant operator (Boiler) (Apprentice)" at the consolidated stipend of Rs. 700/- per month but, it is equally true, that the said appointment order clearly mentions that on completion of the apprenticeship period of one year the petitioner will be absorbed in the K. D. C. M. P. U. Ltd. , "against suitable post. . . . . . . . in the scale of Pay Rs. 420-12-540-EB-15- 675/- likely starting total emoluments Rs. 1400/-at Keonjhar". Thus, it is clear that the appointment letter did not indicate that the petitioner would be absorbed or appointed as a Plant Operator. After completion of the period of apprenticeship, appointment letter dated 11. 9. 1990 (Annexure-3) was issued offering the petitioner the post of 'junior Plant operator (Boiler)' in the pay scale of Rs. 960-20-1160-KB-25-1410/- at keonjhar and other allowances as are admissible. The letter further indicates that he (petitioner) will be on probation for a period of one year. This offer was willingly accepted by the petitioner and ultimately, vide office order dated 4. 5. 1992 (Annexure-4) his services were confirmed in the post of Junior plant Operator (Boiler), This fact is clear from the documents filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner accepted the offer of appointment as junior Plant Operator (Boiler) without any objection, continued to serve as such till his confirmation in the year 1992 and it was for the first time in january, 1995 that an objection was raised by him to the appointment as Junior Plant Operator (Boiler ). The assertion of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure-6 is that he was given appointment as plant Operator is belied by Annexure-1, a reference to which has been made above. The documents on record clearly go to show that he was appointed as a Plant Operator (Boiler) (Apprentice) and not as a Plant Operator. The said letter also does not contain any commitment regarding offering of any particular post. On the contrary, it states that after completion of the apprenticeship, he will be absorbed against a "suitable post" meaning a post to which the opposite parties find him suitable. The said letter also does not contain any commitment regarding offering of any particular post. On the contrary, it states that after completion of the apprenticeship, he will be absorbed against a "suitable post" meaning a post to which the opposite parties find him suitable. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot now complain or raise a grievance that he was wrongly appointed to the post which he willingly accepted without any demur. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot lay a claim to the post of Plant Operator (Boiler) on the salary and other benefits attached to that post. He held accordingly. We may mention that an objection was raised by the opposite parties that the writ petition against them is not maintainable. To this, the reply of the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Santanu Kumar Dash v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa State Co-operative Milk producer Federation Ltd. (O. J. C. No. 8748 of 1995 disposed of on 17. 4. 1996)is that as the K. D. C. M. P. U. Ltd. being a Unit of Orissa State Co-operative Milk producers Federation Ltd. (in brief, 'omfed') and known as Keonjhar District co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. , it is a "state" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution and as such, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. However, considering the fact that notices had already been issued on merits and the fact that no case has been made out to grant the relief claimed, we do not feel it necessary to decide the question of jurisdiction in this writ petition. ( 6 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. P. K. Mohanty, J. 7. I agree. Petition dismissed.