JUDGMENT Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. - The petitioners are employees of several nationalised banks. Certain examinations were held by Indian Institute of Bankers (Respondent No.4) (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) in which the petitioner took part. After examination of the answer books the Institute was of the view that the petitioners had resorted to unfair means at the examination. They were, accordingly, served with show cause notice as contained in annexure-2 series. Subsequently, by the impugned annexure-3 series the result of the petitioners' examination were cancelled and they were debarred from appearing at the Institute Examination for the next two years ending on 30th November, 1982. It was also stated that a report would be sent to the banks in question. 2. The petitioners' case is that they did not use any unfair means at the examination and the view taken against them by the Institute is illegal and fit to be quashed. His writ application has been filed for setting aside annexure-3 series. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the material relied in the show cause notice does not justify the conclusion arrived at by the respondents. It has also been argued that the Institute was under a duty to deal with the show cause filed by the petitioners and give reasons in support of the final order. 4. That a preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the Institute that since the Institute is not 'State', it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the case of Virinder Kumar Kaura vs. The Indian Institute of Bankers (C.K. 116 of 1981 of Punjab & Haryana High Court) and in B. Manjunath Vs. The Indian Institute of Bankers & others (W.P. No. 15129 of 1981 of Karnataka High Court). 5. Mr. Sinha appearing in support of the application relied on the statements made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the writ application stating that the Management of the Bankers have constituted the Indian Bankers Association which in turn has constituted the Indian Institute of Bankers. In that view, it is said that the Institute must be deemed to be under the control of the Bankers which include the nationalised bank. In that view, it is said that the Institute must be deemed to be under the control of the Bankers which include the nationalised bank. Dealing with this averment, it has been stated in the counter affidavit of the respondents that the statement in the writ application mentioned above is not correct. The Indian Institute of Bankers was established long before the constitution of the Indian Banks Association. The Institute was incorporated as a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1917 on the 30th April, 1928 and is now governed by the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is further said that the Institute is a private Institution and merely holds examinations which are not statutory. The control of the institution is vested in its own council and none of its members are appointed by the Central or any other Governments, learned counsel for the Institute during the course of hearing produced before us the Memorandum and Articles of Association which fully support the assertion. 6. On behalf of the petitioners reliance was placed on the decision reported in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & others, A.I.R. 1981 SC 487 wherein it was said that where a Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government it must be held to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and hence subject to the same basic obligation to obey the Fundamental Right as the Government. In view of my finding referred to above that the Institute is a company not under the control of State or any other similar authority, the decision has no application. Reference was also made to the case or State Bank of India, Vs. Kalpake Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. & another (A.I.R. 1979 Bombay 250). That case also does not help the petitioners as the High Court there was not concerned with the nature and position of Indian Institute of Bankers. 7. For the reasons mentioned above I hold that this writ application is not maintainable. 8. It is admitted position that the banks which are also respondents in this case have not taken any step against the petitioners so far. I would therefore, clarify the position that, if and when the respondent banks take any steps which may prejudice the petitioners, they may agitate the matter in accordance with law. 9. The writ application is dismissed, but without costs. I would therefore, clarify the position that, if and when the respondent banks take any steps which may prejudice the petitioners, they may agitate the matter in accordance with law. 9. The writ application is dismissed, but without costs. S. Sarwar Ali, A.C.J. - I agree.