Ratios:
a. Central Co-operative bank is not a ’State’ within the meaning of Art.12 and writ petition is not maintainable against it.
b. To decide whether a body is a ’State’ or ’State instrumentality’ within the meaning of Art.12, the tests formulated in Ajay Hasias case should be applied.

Whether a Central Co-operative Bank (a Scheduled Society) registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court? Answering affirmatively, the petitioners have come forward to enforce the by-law of the Society by a writ.

2. The Salem District Central Co-operative Bank Limited/4th respondent is a Cooperative Society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (in short "the Act"). During the year 2007, the 4th respondent Bank notified certain number of vacancies for the post of Assistants and requested the 5th respondent District Employment Exchange Officer to sponsor the names of the suitable candidates. According to the petitioners, as per Rule 149(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1984 ( in short "the Rules") and the bye-laws of the 4th respondent Central Co-operative Bank, the upper age limit for the candidates belonging to Backward Community and Most Backward Community for appointment to the said post then was 35 years. The Government of Tamil Nadu had imposed a ban on recruitment as per G.O.Ms.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 211. 2001. The said ban was lifted by G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 07.02.2006. Since several candidates were affected due to the said ban, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued yet another order in G.O.Ms.98, dated 17.07.2006 granting 5 years of relaxation of upper age limit for all Government appointments. Indisputably, the said Government Order is applicable to the 4th respondent Co-operative Bank also as the Bank has adopted the said Government Order. Therefore, they claim that the 4th respondent Co-operative Bank ought to have called for sponsorship of names from the District Employment Exchange by fixing the upper age limit at 40 years for BC and MBC candidates. The petitioners, in all the writ petitions belong either to BC or MBC and during the relevant point of time, admittedly, they had crossed 37 years of age, but, not crossed the age of 40 years. Since the names of the petitioners were not sponsored on the ground that they had already crossed the upper age limit of 37 years, the petitioners filed W.P.No.33000 of 2007 before this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider them for employment. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 10.09.2007 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Employment Exchange to sponsor the names of the petitioners. In pursuance of the same, their names were sponsored and they were called for interview. During the final selection process, the 4th respondent Co-operative Bank had again rejected the petitioners on the ground that they had crossed the upper age limit of 37 years (i.e.,) 32 years as per the bye-law and 5 years as per the relaxation given by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners claim that they are well within the age limit of 40 years. They contend that the 4th respondent Co-operative Bank has erroneously prescribed 40 years as upper age limit, instead of 37 years. With the above contentions, the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions.

3. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that it is, of course, true that until Rule 149 (3)of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules was amended, in matters of reservation for appointments and age for appointment and retirement, the rule applicable to the Government Servants was followed. As per the Government rules, the upper age limit for the candidates belonging to BC/MBC was then indisputably 35 years. But, it is contended that Rule 149(3) was amended subsequently as per G.O.Ms.133 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (CJI) Department, dated 14.07.2005 by which the words "age for appointment and retirement" as found in Rule 149(3)were deleted and the same were substituted by the words "age for retirement”. In effect, the upper age limit prescribed for appointment to the Government service has been made inapplicable to the Co-operat