Judgment :- Heard Mr. R. Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ravichandra Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as well as Mr. T. Seenivasan, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner had stated that he had obtained a B.Com., degree from the Madurai Kamaraj University, through private study. He had also completed a diploma in co-operation and he had undergone Co-operative Training from M.D.K. Co-operative Training Institute at Tirunelveli. The petitioner had also completed a Cooperative Supervisors Training course. With the above qualifications, he had applied for appointment in the vacant post of clerk in the first respondents office. The Executive Committee of the first respondent had decided, in its meeting held on 6. 2000, to appoint the petitioner as a clerk in the first respondent Bank, with effect from 6. 2000. However, the objections were raised during the annual audit for the year 1996-97 for having appointed the petitioner as a clerk in the first respondent office. 3. It has been further stated that from the date of his appointment, on 6. 2000, he has been discharging his duties diligently and to the best of his abilities. However, from 30.10.2000, the second respondent has been attempting to prevent the petitioner from attending to his work. Even though the petitioner had submitted written complaints to the third respondent regarding the illegal acts of the second respondent in preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties, no action had been taken against the second respondent. While so, on 111. 2000, the second respondent had issued an order stating that the petitioner should not report to work till further orders are issued. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition in W.P.No.3866 of 2001, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the conduct of the second respondent in issuing the order, dated 111. 2000, is arbitrary and unlawful. In spite of the petitioner making a complaint to the third respondent against the illegal conduct of the second respondent, no action had been taken by the third respondent. Thus, the third respondent had failed to discharge his statutory duties. 2000, is arbitrary and unlawful. In spite of the petitioner making a complaint to the third respondent against the illegal conduct of the second respondent, no action had been taken by the third respondent. Thus, the third respondent had failed to discharge his statutory duties. Further, the second respondent has no power to pass the impugned order in the absence of a Board resolution of the first respondent Bank. Thus, the conduct of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against the order passed on behalf of the Vellikodu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, terminating the service of the petitioner, by an order, dated 111. 2000, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY (2002) 5 SCC 111 ) and the Full Bench decision of this Court in K. MARAPPAN Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL & ANOTHER, ((2006) 4 L.W.495). 6. In the above decisions, it has been clearly held that a cooperative society cannot be included in the definition of "State", under Article 12 of the Constitution of India except under certain circumstances. However, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that such circumstances are existing in the present case to bring the second respondent Society under the purview of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 111. 2000, issued by the second respondent cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.