Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the respondent removing the petitioner from service, alleging that he had been appointed in excess of the cadre strength sanctioned by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed in the post of Supervisor, by an order of the respondent Bank, dated 28. 2001. The petitioner was appointed since he had all the necessary qualifications and the appointment had been done through the employment exchange following the Rules and Regulations. While so, a show cause notice had been issued by the President of the respondent Bank, on 112. 2001. The petitioner had submitted his explanation setting out the necessary details. Thereafter, when the Special officer had assumed charge of the respondent Bank, he had issued notices, dated 20.2.2002 and 13. 2002. The petitioner had challenged the said notices by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.13293 of 2002. The said writ petition had been disposed of by an order of this Court, dated 210. 2002, wherein certain guidelines had been framed with regard to the irregular appointments made in the Co-operative Institutions. However, the respondent Bank had passed an order, dated 12. 2002, terminating the petitioner from service. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition against the said order, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. 5. It has been stated that the petitioner had been removed from service, since his appointment is in excess of the cadre strength approved by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. Even though the petitioner had been appointed through the employment exchange, it would not justify his appointment, since it is beyond the approved cadre strength and since it is a vital aspect to be considered. Further, the appointment of the petitioner is only on a temporary basis. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to the post of Supervisor. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the termination of the petitioner is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.2501 of 2001 (batch), dated 210. 2002. Further, the appointment of the petitioner is only on a temporary basis. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to the post of Supervisor. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the termination of the petitioner is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.2501 of 2001 (batch), dated 210. 2002. Since the petitioner had been appointed through the employment exchange and he is fully qualified, the order passed by the respondent terminating the service of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had placed before this Court a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 4. 2004, in W.A.Nos.863 and 1741 to 1743 of 2003, wherein, it has been clearly held that once the appointment has been made beyond the cadre strength approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, such an appointment would be invalid. Paragraph 7 of the said Judgment reads as follows: "7. It is the clear stand of the respondent that the then President, without even approval of the competent Authority, namely, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society and also without reference to the recruitment Committee, has made the appointments to the posts over and above the cadre strength. Merely because, the name of the appellants were sponsored by the Employment Exchange the same will not entitle them to contend that they were appointed as against the cadre strength as the recruitment through the Employment Exchange is one of the conditions of appointment but only as against the post created after cadre strength is fixed and not otherwise. Hence, the contention that the appellants were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and therefore their employments were not irregular cannot be accepted." 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable against the order passed on behalf of the respondent Cooperative Institution, terminating the service of the petitioner, by an order, dated 12. 2002, 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). 9. 2002, 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). 9. 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 respondent Bank under the purview of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 12. 2002, issued by the 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.