JUDGMENT - DAUD S.M., J.:—Is a 'medical institution' amenable to the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226, and, if yes, is the present a case warranting the exercise of that jurisdiction? 2. The respondent-College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is an elite association of teachers and practitioners of the Allopathic system of medicine and surgery. The policy-making body of the College is a Council of 24 elected members. It has secured the status of a 'medical institution' and under section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act) can grant qualifications which are recognised medical qualifications specified in the First Schedule. One not recognised medical qualification it awards, is a Diploma in Ophthalmic Medicine and Surgery (DOMS). Till the last month or so, the examinations for the DOMS were regulated by Rules relating to enrolment of post-graduate students these Rules being referred to as the "Old Rules" in the petition. These old Rules have been replaced by another set as from 1st August, 1988, described by the petitioner as the "New Rules". The old Rules had no ceiling on the time element or number of appearances a candidate could make until he passed the exam. The new Rules limited the passing out period to four years from enrolment. 3. Petitioner enrolled himself for the DOMS course in July 1984. He appeared for and failed at the April 1986 and the four subsequent exams. On 1-7-1988 he registered himself for the ensuing examination scheduled for October i.e. this month. This was by paying the prescribed fee of Rs. 400/-. The College, on 12-9-1988, telegraphically informed him of the rejection of his application to appear for the exam. (scheduled to commence on 10-10-1988) and the refund of the fee paid. Two days later, the present petition was lodged. 4. Petitioner's case is that the College is a 'State' within the meaning of the expression in Article 12. The old Rules permitted him to repeat the examinations any number of times. Even the new Rules which were declared to be operational from 1-8-1988 could not come in his way as he had registered for the October exam in July 1988. If construed in the manner the College desired, he would be deprived of a right retrospectively. The new Rules did not purport to do so. Even the new Rules which were declared to be operational from 1-8-1988 could not come in his way as he had registered for the October exam in July 1988. If construed in the manner the College desired, he would be deprived of a right retrospectively. The new Rules did not purport to do so. The decision to debar him from appearing at the October exam, was ultra vires and had to be quashed. The reply of the College, is, that it is not a State, but an autonomous and independent body of doctors all over India. The decision to debar repeaters after failures of four years was taken in the interests of Ophthalmic Medicine. Persons aspiring for the DOMS had to be abreast of the latest developments in the subject and this required acquaintance with the theoretical as also the practical aspects of the subject. Petitioner lacked this and was not therefore deemed entitled to appear for the exams. The decisions was bona fide and the old Rules relied upon by petitioner themselves permitted a scrutiny of the applications for appearance at exams. This scrutiny enabled exclusion of misfits and a repeater after four years could not have the updated knowledge required of examinees. 5. The first issue is whether the College is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226? The returns of the College make a point of emphasising its self created, autonomous and independent character. The College was formed by doctors in their private capacity and works with its own funds. No Government or authority contributes to it, whether financially or otherwise. Control over its working vests in a Council of 24 members elected by their peers. Not one of the elements said to constitute a 'State' adhere to it. Petitioner's reply is that the very fact of its being a 'medical institution' under section 11 of the Act makes it a 'State'. It is only such medical institutions that can grant recognised medical qualifications. Now so far as the Act is concerned, the DOMS awarded by the College is not a recognised medical qualification. This is clear if one reads the First and Third Schedules which are connected with sections 11 and 13. To get over this fatal void, petitioner refers to the part played by a Government official in the initial founding, funding and membership thereof. This is clear if one reads the First and Third Schedules which are connected with sections 11 and 13. To get over this fatal void, petitioner refers to the part played by a Government official in the initial founding, funding and membership thereof. Its creation was first mooted by the then Surgeon General of the Government of Bombay in 1911. Initially one-third of its members were drawn from Medical Officers of the Province. In 1913 the Government made a grant of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Even now the Indian Medical Council had before it an application of the respondent for recognition of its DOMS. In substance, it exercised the functions of a Governmental authority and therefore could not escape the net of Article 12. A body like the College which awards recognised medical qualifications vide sections 11 and 13 of the Act, may, in fact, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. This however does not mean that all its activities, even those not linked to sections 11 and 13 become subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts. That its creation was due to the efforts of a Government Officer, that the Government gave it a lavish grant and that one third of its members were drawn from the cadre of Government Medical Officers, is part of history. These do not have a bearing on the legal position. Government Officers have inspired several voluntary associations which today have tremendous assets and influence. Membership of these associations may comprise a large segment of State employees. In certain spheres, these associations may be 'authorities' as contemplated by Articles 12 and 226. But where a nexus such as provided by sections 11 and 13 of the Act is missing, the act or omission of the association, is not that of the 'State'. In fact the issue is no longer open to doubt. The Supreme Court's decision in the case of the (Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 469 is a complete answer to the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. The ICPS is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Its first President was the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Of the first five Vice-Presidents, three were then Ministers at the Centre. Several of its officer bearers were Ministers and Officers. The office of the ICPS was initially located within the Parliament House. The ICPS is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Its first President was the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Of the first five Vice-Presidents, three were then Ministers at the Centre. Several of its officer bearers were Ministers and Officers. The office of the ICPS was initially located within the Parliament House. The main source of its income was the annual grant of the Union Government. A wide-ranging survey of reported decisions was taken to determine the issue. The ratio evolved is to be found in the following excepts :-- "13. It is time to turn to the facts of the present case to find out as to what the conclusion should be when the tests formulated by the several cases of this Court referred to above are applied. There cannot indeed be a strait jacket formula. It is not necessary that all the tests should be satisfied for reaching the conclusion either for or against holding an institution to be 'State'. In a given case some of the features may emerge so boldly and prominently that a second view may not be possible. There may yet be other cases where the matter would be on the border line and it would be difficult to take one view or the other outright. 20. We have several cases of societies registered under Societies Registration Act which have been treated as 'State' but in each of those cases it would appear on analysis that either governmental business had been undertaken by the Society or what was expected to be the public obligation of the 'State' had been undertaken to be performed as a part of the Society's function. In a Welfare State, as has been pointed out on more than one occasion by this Court, governmental control is very pervasive and in fact touches all aspects of social existence. In the absence of a fair application of the tests to be made, there is possibility of turning every non-governmental society into an agency or instrumentality of the State. That obviously would not serve the purpose and may be far from reality. A broad picture of the matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping the realities and human experiences in view so as to reach a reasonable conclusion. That obviously would not serve the purpose and may be far from reality. A broad picture of the matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping the realities and human experiences in view so as to reach a reasonable conclusion. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts of this case, we are not in a position to hold that ICPS is either an agency or instrumentality of the State so as to come within the purview of 'other authorities' in Article 12 of the Constitution. We must say that ICPS is a case of its type typical in many ways and the normal tests may perhaps not properly apply to test its character." The position of the respondent vis-a-vis the DOMS is very close to that of the ICPS. Its founder was a Government Officer and the munificent grant of Rs. 2,00,000/- virtually set it going. The membership had a strong contingent of Government Medical Officers. Where the College awards recognised medical qualifications vis-a-vis sections 11 and 13, it is undoubtedly performing governmental functions. But for this limitation, it is not a 'State'. That the College has applied for recognition to its DOMS exam, does not make the matter any better for the petitioner. As the Act makes clear, there is a marked difference between a recognised medical qualification and one not so recognised. 6. The other issued does not survive but shall be dealt with to give completeness to the judgment. The new Rules clearly speak of their applicability to those who enrol from 1st August, 1988. This would exclude a person like the petitioner whose enrolment took place on 1-7-1988. That the decision is in the interests of the practice of Medicine and bona fide, is neither here nor there. The argument that even earlier a Committee used to scrutinise applications and accept or reject some, is of no avail. The acceptance or rejection in that case was to find out eligibility or otherwise according to the old Rules. The Rules constitute a representation to the concerned and however laudable the motive, cannot be construed to the detriment of the intending examinees. This apart and because the College is not a 'State', no writ can issue. 7. The petition fails. Rule discharged with parties left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. -----