ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. The petitioner is working as a clerk with the Central Bank of India at Gwalior. He is also entitled to promotion from the cadre of clerks to the cadre of officers. The Bank conducted an All India Service Test for determining the eligibility for this promotional exercise. This exercise was undertaken by respondent No. 3, namely, Institute of Indian Banking Personnel Services (formerly known as NIBM). The petitioner was unsuccessful. He challenged the result of the examination on the ground that in test booklet of the petitioner the answers were serially quoted in a manner which was different from other answer books. The above assertion is sought to be illustrated by making a reference to the question which is to the effect - "where is the Taj Mahal situate?" Five options have been given. There is difference in the booklet and answer-sheet as to correct answer. According to the petitioner, if he gives answer number then the computer is going to be fed accordingly and he would not get the correct marks even though his answer is right. He further submits that there would be minus marking for giving wrong answer. It is mentioned that there are about 10-12 such wrong questions of this nature. It is further stated that the discrepancy was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of the examination hall. A representation, copy whereof is Annexure P/3, has been placed on record. It is because of this printing which is full of mistakes, the petitioner seeks relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No. 3 has not filed any return. The respondent-bank has taken a stand that as the test was not conducted by it but was conducted by respondent No. 3, it is not answerable for the lapse, if any committed by respondent No. 3. It is also argued that respondent No. 3, who conducted the test, is not an authority for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, no writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, that stand taken by the Bank is simple. According to it, this is the matter regarding which no judicial review is permissible. 3. So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, that stand taken by the Bank is simple. According to it, this is the matter regarding which no judicial review is permissible. 3. I am of the view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the bank. 4. So far as the status of respondent No. 3 is concerned, I am of the view that it would fall within the definition of term "authority" as occurring in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487 , laid down six tests for determining as to whether a particular authority would answer the description of the term "authority" for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. These tests are as under:- "(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the Corporation is held by the Government it will go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character. (3) It may also be relevant factor... whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected. (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (5) If the function of the Corporation is 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 the Government. (6) Specifically, if a department of Govt. 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." 5. Keeping in view the decision indicated above, I am of the view that the respondent No. 3 is squarely covered by the category carved out in test No. 5. The respondent No. 3 is performing the functions of public importance. Keeping in view the decision indicated above, I am of the view that the respondent No. 3 is squarely covered by the category carved out in test No. 5. The respondent No. 3 is performing the functions of public importance. These functions are the same as are performed by the other Governmental or semi-Governmental authorities and, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent No. 3 is an instrumentality for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and a writ can be issued. The matter can be looked from another angle also. It is the respondent-bank who was to conduct the examination. If instead of conducting the test itself an appointment of an agent is made to hold this examination, it virtually amounts to as if the examination was conducted by the bank through its agent and for this reason also this respondent, who is merely an agent of respondent No. 1, the respondent-bank would be amenable to writ jurisdiction. 6. The learned counsel for the bank has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of the Punajb and Haryana High Court reported as Ram Prashad v. Indian Institute of Bankers, AIR 1992 Punjab and Haryana 1. The question was whether Indian Institute of Bankers is an authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was held that no writ can be issued against this authority. This decision is clearly distinguishable. This is because this authority was conducting the examination at its own level. It was not appointed as an agent as is the case in hand. Thus, the above decision is not attracted to the facts of this case. 7. Coming to the merits of the controversy, I am of the view that the act of the respondents in holding the examination and the manner in which the test was conducted is amenable to judicial review. The exact question of similar nature was considered by this Court in the case of Ku. Ruchi Trikha v. State of M.P. 1995 (1) Service Cases Today 79. The facts in the above case were as under :- "Pre-Medical Test for the year 1994 was conducted by the Professional Examination Board. This test was held on 4th July, 1994 at Madhav Institute of Technology and Sciences, Gwalior which is the cause of this petition. Ruchi Trikha v. State of M.P. 1995 (1) Service Cases Today 79. The facts in the above case were as under :- "Pre-Medical Test for the year 1994 was conducted by the Professional Examination Board. This test was held on 4th July, 1994 at Madhav Institute of Technology and Sciences, Gwalior which is the cause of this petition. The procedure was to supply a question booklet to the candidates. The answers were to be given on a separate sheet. This is an objective type paper. The examination commenced at 8 AM. The duration was 2 hours and 100 questions were to be answered. When the petitioner proceeded to attempt 41st question, she found that this question was not there instead the sequence of questions was in the following order :- "71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100." This break is sequence of the number, according to the petitioner broke the sequence of her thought process as well. She got nervous. She approached the superintendent as also the invigilator. There is some dispute as to the point when this fact was brought to the notice of the above officials. The petitioner states that this was done as soon as she reached question No. 41 and found that this was not in order. The respondents in the return state that this protest was lodged only at the end as the petitioner wanted more time to answer the questions. It would be best to rely upon the affidavit of one Abhay Mishra who was invigilator in this examination. This is Annexure R/4. This is what has stated in para 2 :- "That, I state on oath that Kumari Ruchi Trikha, the petitioner, had never made any complaint to me for about an hour after beginning of the examination in respect of the defective question booklet. As far as I remember, she made the said complaint after an hour, but upto that time, there was no spare question book-let with me as the Examination Supdt. As far as I remember, she made the said complaint after an hour, but upto that time, there was no spare question book-let with me as the Examination Supdt. collected all spare question book-lets as per instructions." "As the respondents have chosen to place reliance on Annexure R/4, it is to be believed that the objection was taken by the petitioner somewhere after she reached question No. 41." Thus, the facts in the above case and in the present case are similar. In the above case, after considering other decided cases it was ultimately held that the petitioner is entitled to relief and this relief was given by directing the authorities to give average marks for wrong answers. The last para of the above judgment reads as under :- "In the present case, it is clear that the question-answer book-let was defective. The petitioner has stated that she lost 25 to 30 minutes. She wanted more time. The fact that a complaint was made in the middle of the examination has not been denied. In the above cases, where there was loss of answer books method of granting average marks was resorted. Here there is loss of time. The petitioner has done well in this paper. Had there been no fault in the stitching the problem would not have arisen. The respondents now must compensate the petitioner. This can be done by giving her average marks for un-attempted questions. For 87 questions she obtained 226 marks. Let the average of 13 be counted and added to her count." 8. It may be seen that against the above judgment a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred in this Court. This bears No. 83/1994. This appeal was dismissed on 2nd December, 1994. A Special Leave Petition was preferred in the Supreme Court of India. That was also dismissed. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the above case, the petitioner is entitled to relief. He would be given average marks for those questions which were wrongly printed in the answer-sheet. The petitioner would also be entitled to costs. Costs Rs. 500/-.