Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent/ Special Officer/Managing Director of the Salem Central Co-operative Bank, who denied the employment to the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Govt. Advocate for the 1st respondent and Mr.R.Raghavan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is a Co-operative Bank. The larger bench of this court in 2006 (4) CTC 689 in K.Marappan v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal, held in para 21 as under: "21. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge: (i) If a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be 'an authority' within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a society in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of writ petition; (ii) Applying the tests in Ajay Hasia it is held that a co-operative society carrying on banking business cannot be termed as an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution; (iii) Even if a society cannot be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a 'person' or 'an authority' within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and what is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court will enforce such statutory public duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity; (iv) A society, which is not a 'State' would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including societies. If they violate such statutory provisions a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions; (v) Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a co-operative society which cannot be characterised as a 'State' a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above; (vi) The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a 'State', the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition; (vii) In the absence of special circumstances, the Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy; and (viii) The decision in M. Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society, 2004 (5) CTC 556 is no longer good law, in view of the decision of the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case and the other decisions referred to here before." The writ petition filed with regard to the service, claim for appointment will not be appropriate. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to do so in view of para 21 of the judgment as above. Hence, the writ petition has to fail. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy under the statute. 5. In so far as plea of limitation is concerned, the period during which the writ was pending before this court can be excluded for the purpose of limitation. No costs.