JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, C. J.—The writ petitioner Ram Prasad Kalia is an employee of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank. Respondent No. I issued an advertisement sailing for applications for the examination to be conducted for selection of candidates to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Etcetera Com bind Competitive Examination, 1994. The petitioner submitted an application, but he was not given admit card to sit in the examination. Hence, the present petition. 2. In the reply filed on behalf of the Public Service Commission, it has been stated that the petitioner is over-age and, therefore, he is not eligible to sit in the examination. Admittedly, the petitioner has crossed the age limit of 31 years, as prescribed in the advertisement. However, in the case in hand, the petitioner has claimed the benefit of Clause 12 of the advertisement 3. Heard Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. K. Khanna, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Inder Singh, learned Advocate General, for respondent No. 2 4. Sub-clause (d) of Clause 12 of the Examination Rules, inter alia, provides that a Government servant who is holding substantive/officiating appointment under Himachal Pradesh Government or the High Court or any court subordinate thereto/employees of the Public Sector Undertakings/ Corporations/Autonomous Bodies which are wholly or substantially owned or controlled by Himachal Pradesh Government shall be eligible to appear in the examination (subject to four chances including those which he might have availed as a general candidate within the normal age limit) if he has not attained the age of 40 years on the 1st January, 1994 provided such candidate possesses continuous service whether permanent or officiating under the State Government or the above organisations 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Bank in question is owned and also controlled by the State Government On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Commission submitted that the Bank has got a separate entity and that it is neither controlled nor owned by the State Government. 6. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra v. H. P. State Co-operative Bank and others, 1993 (2) Sim LC 243. 6. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra v. H. P. State Co-operative Bank and others, 1993 (2) Sim LC 243. We find that in this decision, the Division Bench considered whether the Bank in question is an instrumentality of the State or not, so as to bring it under Article 12 of the Constitution. While considering this aspect of the matter, the Division Bench also considered whether the Bank is owned or controlled by the State Government. Though the State Government contributed substantial amount towards the share capital, we find that only one vote is available for a person nominated by the State Government to the Board and accordingly the Division Bench has held that by subscribing to the share capital that will not by itself make the Bank an instrumentality or agency of the State. The question of control was also duly considered and it was noted that "there is no doubt of some type of control being present on behalf of the State Government but whether that control is deep and pervasive or whether that can be called as nominal and some type of control being not plenary". After considering the entire matter, it was held that it cannot be said that there was any deep and pervasive control of the State Government over the functioning of the Co-operative Bank and the type of control, which can be exercised by the Registrar or even by the State Government is only limited in order to see that the Cooperative Society functions in accordance with its bye-laws. In other words, in view of the above judgment, we are of the opinion that the Bank in question is not controlled by the State Government. Similarly, it is also not owned by the State Government. 7. In the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, a letter of the State Government has been annexed as Annexure R-l, which reads as under: "I am directed to refer to your office letter No. 3-1/91-PSC (E-I) dated 23-3-1992, on the subject cited above and to say that the provision of relaxation of upper age limit to the employees of the Corporations/Boards/Autonomous Bodies for admission to H. P. Administrative Service etc. Combind Competitive Examination was made on 16-1-1980 for the first time under H P. Administrative Service Rules, 1973 because the Government had converted some of its Departments into Corporations/ Councils. Relaxation of upper age limit was made available to those employees only who were Government servants before the formation of Corporations/Councils. Thereafter this concession was given to all employees of these Corporations/Councils w. e. f 12-7-1988 There is no provision for the relaxation of upper age limit to the employees of Municipal Committees/ Notified Area Committees/Local Bodies or H P. State Cooperative Bank, under the rules. Therefore, age concession is not available to the employees of these institutions for admission to the H. P. Administrative Service Examination........" 8. We find that this letter has been issued under Rule 28 of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Rules, as under {he said Rule if any question arises relating to the interpretation of these rules, it shall be decided by the State Government. 9. We have perused the above letter and it cannot be said that the letter is either arbitrary or not in accordance with the provisions of the law or the rules. Therefore, the decision of the State Government cannot be faulted. 10. In the said letter, the policy of the State Government has been mentioned and we are of the opinion that this policy does not help the petitioner. 11. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the petitioner cannot claim relaxation of age under sub-clause (d) of Clause 12 of the Examination Rules. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Costs on the parties. Writ petition dismissed.