ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The Respondent 1 was appointed as a contingent worker on the post of Photographer-cum-Clerk with the Tripura State Cooperative Union Limited, Appellant 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cooperative Union") on 25-6-1986. He was being paid a fixed amount of Rs. 600 per month. In May 1992 he filed writ petition (Civil Rule No. 129 of 1992) in the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, seeking the relief of equal pay for equal work on the ground that photographers in other government departments were being paid higher pay for doing the same work. He also sought regularisation on the a post. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated 24-5-1993, allowed the said writ petition and directed that Respondent 1 be regularised in the regular pay scale on the post of Photographer with effect from 1-7-1986. Writ Appeal No. 8 of 1993 filed by the appellants against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 30-9-1994. The learned Judges constituting the Division Bench of the High Court have held that the Cooperative Union was "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution since it is under the control of the State Government of Tripura. The learned Judges have further held that Respondent 1 possesses the qualifications required of a photographer and had, in fact, been working in all these years as a photographer and, therefore, there was no reason why an instrumentality of the State should deny him the benefits of the well-recognised principle of equal pay for equal work. The Division Bench of the High Court has also upheld the direction given by the learned Single Judge regarding regularisation of Respondent 1 on the post of Photographer. The learned Judges have distinguished the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh ( (1992) 4 SCC 118 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 825 : (1992) 21 ATC 403) and Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Admn. ( (1992) 4 SCC 99 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 805 : (1992) 21 ATC 386) on the ground that the present case is of a lone employee. 3. We find it difficult to agree with the said view of the learned Judges of the High Court. ( (1992) 4 SCC 99 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 805 : (1992) 21 ATC 386) on the ground that the present case is of a lone employee. 3. We find it difficult to agree with the said view of the learned Judges of the High Court. On the question whether the Cooperative Union can be regarded as "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution we find that the High Court has not dealt with the nature and extent of the control exercised by the State Government over the Cooperative Union. Though reference has been made by the High Court to the decisions of this Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi ( (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258 : AIR 1981 SC 487 ), International Airport Authorities case (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 4 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 ), Indian Council of Agricultural Research case (Bhagwan Dos v. Indian Council of Agriculniral Reseinch, 1985 Supp SCC 38 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 558 : AIR 1985 SC 1192 ) and All India Sainik Schools Employees Assn. case (All India Sainik Schools Employees Assn. v. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 205 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 264 : (1989) 9 ATC 827 : AIR 1989 SC 88 ), but the High Court has not considered the matter in the light of the tests laid down by this Court for determining whether a particular undertaking is an instrumentality of the State and can be regarded as "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. 4. Similarly, with regard to the qualifications of Respondent 1, we find that the case of Respondent 1, as set out in the writ petition, was that he holds a diploma in Printing and Graphic Art (Commercial Photography) and has also passed two years certificate course in Art and Craft. By letter dated 10-1-1995, the Cooperative Union sought a clarification from the Principal of Regional Institute of Printing Technology, State Council for Engineering and Technical Education, Government of West Bengal, regarding the qualifications possessed by Respondent 1. By letter dated 10-1-1995, the Cooperative Union sought a clarification from the Principal of Regional Institute of Printing Technology, State Council for Engineering and Technical Education, Government of West Bengal, regarding the qualifications possessed by Respondent 1. In response to the said letter the Principal of the Regional Institute of Printing Technology, by his letter dated 12-1-1994, informed the Administrator of the Cooperative Union that the diploma which has been granted to Respondent 1 was only with regard to photography and that it has no connection with the Technology of Printing. The other statement made by Respondent 1 that he has passed two years certificate course in Art and Craft is also not correct because all that he has been able to show is that he was a student of the second year of the said course and there is nothing to show that he has passed the two years course. The Principal, Government College of Art and Craft, Agartala, by his letter dated 12-1-1995, has informed the Executive Officer of the Cooperative Union that Respondent 1 discontinued his studies in the second year preparatory course in 1981-82 and that he neither passed the preparatory dcourse nor passed five years diploma course as per the office record of the Government College of Art and Craft, Agartala. It would thus appear that Respondent 1 has made incorrect statements about his qualifications. 5. As to the direction give by the High Court with regard to regularisation, it may be stated that there is no post of Photographer as such in the Cooperative Union and Respondent 1 was discharging the work of clerk. As a result of the direction given by the High Court for regularisation of Respondent 1, the Cooperative Union would be required to create a post of Photographer for the purpose of such regularisation. Such a direction was not permissible. Since there is no post of Photographer in the Cooperative Union the principle of equal pay for equal work can also not be applied. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, we are unable to uphold the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 30-9-1994 as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24-5-1993 are set aside and the writ petition (Civil Rule No. 129 of 1992) filed by Respondent 1 is dismissed. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 30-9-1994 as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24-5-1993 are set aside and the writ petition (Civil Rule No. 129 of 1992) filed by Respondent 1 is dismissed. It is clarified that in case the Cooperative Union makes a regular appointment on a post and if Respondent 1 fulfils the qualifications gprescribed for the said post and applies for it he shall be considered for such appointment and the age requirement shall be relaxed for that purpose. No order as to costs.