M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these two petitions are Assistant Agricultural Engineers on the establishment of the Karnataka agro Industries Corporation Ltd. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 2 to 4, who are their juniors, have been promoted as Divisional Agricultural Engineers. ( 2 ) A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the Corporation that the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that it ie not 'state' as defined in Art. 12 of the constitution. The question is not res integra. It is now well settled that the form of a corporate body is not decisive to find out whether it is an enstrumentaltiy of the State or not. The tests laid down by the Supreme court to decide as to whether a body is State as defined in Art. 12, or not, in the case of Somprakash Rekhi v. Union of India (1) are:"29. Let us cull out from Airport authority, ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) (supra) the indicia of 'other authorities. . . under control of the government of India' bringing a corporation within the definition of 'the State'. The following factors have been emphasised in that ruling as telling, though not clinching. These characteristics convert a statutory corporation, a government company, a co-operative sbciety and other registered society or body into a state and they are not confined to statutory corporations alone. We may decoet the tests for ready reference. 1. 'one thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. ' 2. Excistence of 'deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a slate agency or instrumentality. ' ( 3 ) 'it may also be a relevant factor. . . . whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. ' ( 4 ) 'if the functions of the Corporation are of public importance and, closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of government. . . . whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. ' ( 4 ) 'if the functions of the Corporation are of public importance and, closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of government. ' ( 5 ) 'specifically, if a department of government is transferred to a corporation it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference' of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government. " the first and the fifth tests laid down are applicable to the Corporation. It is admitted that 51 per cent of its shares are held by the Central Government and the rest by the State government and that the agricultural engineering wing which was part of the Agriculture Department of the state Government was transformed into a corporation. Therefore, I reject the preliminary objection and hold that the Corporation is 'state' for purposes of Part III of the Constitution and consequertly bound by the fundamental lights incorporated therein. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, the seniority list produced as Annexure e1 along with the writ petitions itself indicates that respondents 2 to 4 are seniors to the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that it was only a provisional list and according to the petitioners the ranking given to them is wrong and that respondents 2 to 4 should have been placed below the petitioners. He also submitted that the petitioners have made representations aggrieved by the ranking assigned to respondents 2 to 4 above them. 4. Even on the basis that the list is only provisional, the corporation was bound to follow the said list for making promotions unless the ranking of the officials was altered by any subsequent list. Sri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the corporation, submitted that the final list will be published expeditiously. 5. As the list, on the basis of which promotions are made, is only provisional, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that they are premature. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they want to urge some'additional grounds before the corporation before finalising the seniority. 5. As the list, on the basis of which promotions are made, is only provisional, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground that they are premature. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they want to urge some'additional grounds before the corporation before finalising the seniority. They are at liberty to do so Accordingly, I make the following order: (i) The writ petitions are dismissed leaving liberty for the petitioners to insist the corporation to finalise the seniority list expditiously. If any odditional representations are made within two weeks from today the corporation shall consider the same before finalising the seniority. (ii) No costs. --- *** --- .