Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was employed as a Junior Clerk in the second respondent Bank based on the interview held, on 5. 2000. The petitioner was appointed, on 8. 2001. By the impugned order passed by the second respondent, on 21. 2003, the petitioner had been terminated from service, due to the fact that her appointment was beyond the cadre strength sanctioned by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a clerk in the second respondent Bank, on 8. 2001. The said appointment is illegal and improper. The appointment was made without the prior approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The list sent by the District Employment Officer, on 24. 2000, had lapsed and therefore, any appointment made thereafter cannot be said to be legal. Since the appointment of the petitioner was beyond the cadre strength sanctioned by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the said appointment cannot be held to be valid. Further, the appointment of the petitioner had been made contrary to Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. 4. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that she was terminated from service without having been given an opportunity to put forth her case. The petitioner had not been appointed contrary to the cadre strength sanctioned by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in K. MARAPPAN Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL & ANOTHER, ((2006) 4 L.W.495). 6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is clear that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in K. MARAPPAN Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL & ANOTHER, ((2006) 4 L.W.495). 6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is clear that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in K. MARAPPAN Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL & ANOTHER, ((2006) 4 L.W.495). 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 21. 2003, 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. However, it is open to the petitioner to agitate the matter, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. No costs.