Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been recruited as a Secretary of the second respondent Society, in accordance with Rule 149 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1983, from 198. While so, the Tamilnadu State Primary Co-operative Bank Employees Association had announced an indefinite strike raising various demands, with effect from 110. 2000. Pursuant to the strike call, issued by the Association, the employees of the second respondent bank had participated in the strike. After the strike had been called off, on 210. 2000, the petitioner had gone to the second respondent bank to resume his duties. However, he was not permitted to do so. While so, the second respondent had issued a show cause notice, on 210. 2000, to all the bank employees, to resume duties and stating that on their failure to do so, action would be taken against them. The said show cause notice was received by the petitioner, on 310. 2000. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner had gone to the second respondent bank to rejoin duty. The petitioner had also submitted an explanation to the second respondent stating the events that had taken place on 210. 2000 and thereafter. On receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an order had been issued suspending the petitioner from service, from 310. 2000. Since the writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the said impugned order, was held to be not maintainable, by an order passed by this Court, on 112. 2000, in W.P.S.R.No.89408 of 2000, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the first respondent, under Section 153 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The first respondent had passed an order, on 22. 2001, dismissing the revision petition. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.4584 of 2001, challenging the said order of the first respondent, dated 22. 2001, stating that it was a non speaking order and that it was contrary to law, and the principles of natural justice and therefore, it was illegal and void. This Court, by its order, dated 19. 2008, dismissed the said writ petition as infructuous, since a final order had been passed, thereafter, on 15. 2001, dismissing the petitioner from service, based on the findings in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. This Court, by its order, dated 19. 2008, dismissed the said writ petition as infructuous, since a final order had been passed, thereafter, on 15. 2001, dismissing the petitioner from service, based on the findings in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent Bank, on 15. 2001, dismissing the petitioner from service. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 15. 2001, had been passed by the second respondent without conducting an enquiry. Further, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and it is against the weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. It has also been contended that the order of the second respondent, dated 15. 2001, has been passed without jurisdiction, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. However, since the petitioner is governed by G.O.Ms.No.55, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 23. 2000, forming a common cadre of service, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies is the appropriate authority to pass such orders altering the service conditions of an employee, coming under the common cadre of service. Since the order of termination had been passed by the President of the second respondent Bank, it is without jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned order, dated 15. 2001, dismissing the petitioner from service, is in accordance with law. The President of the second respondent Bank had passed the impugned order after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. Further, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 15. 2001, by filing a writ petition before this Court, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a writ petition is not maintainable against a Cooperative Society. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the impugned order, dated 15. 2001, passed by the second respondent. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the impugned order, dated 15. 2001, passed by the second respondent. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable against the second respondent Bank, which is a registered Co-operative society. Unless it is shown that the second respondent Bank is qualified to come under the definition of "State", under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, an order passed by the President of the second respondent Bank, cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the decision reported in K.Marappan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal and another ( 2006(4) CTC 689 ). Since the petitioner has failed to show that a writ petition would lie against the order passed by the President of the second respondent Bank, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.