Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to forthwith take written examination of the petitioner in the branch of Civil Engineering after declaring that the examination held by the respondents for recruitment is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Further declaration has been sought for to the effect that the action of the concerned respondent in giving the question paper of Mechanical Engineering to the petitioner in the written examination was mala fide. 2. Petitioners case is that he is a graduate in Engineering having passed Bachelor of Engineering examination with Civil Engineering in first class in the year, 1998. The petitioner has a good academic background with 80.5% marks in matriculation examination and 80.5% in Intermediate Science examination. In the year 1998 an advertisement was published in the Employment News in the month of July 1998 regarding recruitment in the vacant post of group IV (i) in Central Fuel Research Institute, Dhanbad in which the candidates, inter alia, with qualification of 1st class Bachelor of Engineering with not less than 65% marks were made eligible to apply for the aforesaid vacant posts. It is stated that the advertisement did not specify the names of the particular discipline as a condition precedent for the eligibility. However, the advertisement stated that candidates for Scientific (G roup IV) need to have impressive academic background in applied Science or in chemical, mechanical, mineral or environmental disciplines. Thus advertisement on the whole was not specific on the point of disciplines of Engineering faculty. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner applied in proper form prescribed in the advertisement specifying, inter alia, his qualification as Bachelor of Engineering (civil) 1st class in Civil Engineering with 69.3% marks. The application was scrutinised by the authorities and admit card was issued in favour of the petitioner along with instructions contained therein by respondent no.3, controller of administration. The instructions mentioned that the written test will be on the pattern of GATE without specifying the disciplines which are to be covered under it. It is contended that the instructions were not complied in all respect as the same did not mention as to whether there would be seperate groups of questions for seperate disciplines to be answered by the candidates of respective disciplines. It is contended that the instructions were not complied in all respect as the same did not mention as to whether there would be seperate groups of questions for seperate disciplines to be answered by the candidates of respective disciplines. Petitioners further case is that as per syllabus prescribed for GATE examination, questions of Environmental are exclusively asked in the Civil Engineering category of the GATE Examination. In GATE there is no seperate paper of environmental engineering. The petitioner alleged that he was expecting that the questions on Environmental Engineering would be allotted to him which would justify the GATE pattern and accordingly he was prepared for the same. The petitioner accordingly appeared on the scheduled date in the examination in the centre, namely, Father Agnel School, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that when he sat in the examination, he found that the questions set with answer sheets for mechanical engineering were given to him for answer. The petitioner never expected such a situation and was bewildered. It is stated that in GATE paper Environmental Engineering is not included under Mechanical Engineering. The petitioner ptotested to the invigilator about the set of questions given to him. The invigilator expressed his inability to intervene in the matter. Petitioners case is that he learnt from the candidates that seperate group of question papers have been set including the questions of Environmental Engineering but the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to appear in his own subject as the said set of questions were not given to him for answer although the same was very much in existence and question set of Environmental Engineering were distributed to some candidates. The petitioner, therefore, claims that respondents nos. 2 to 4 have acted in a most discriminatory, arbitrary and eratic manner in shutting the opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the interview in order to favour candidates of their choice for oblique motive or reasons. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, besides taking preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application, it is inter alia, stated that the advertisement clearly spells out that the persons having impressive academic background applied science, chemical, mechanical, mineral and environmental engineering were needed. Accordingly test papers were set in the disciplines of applied science, Chemical Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Mineral Engineering. Accordingly test papers were set in the disciplines of applied science, Chemical Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Mineral Engineering. The test papers were based on the structure and syllabi of GATE. It is stated that the GATE paper is set for a duration of three hours and consists of mostly multiple choice questions and some questions involving elaborate calculation steps. For the CFRI test papers all questions were of multiple choice type with one correct answer for each question. It is stated that the advertisement clearly specified the academic background expected of the applicants. Civil Engineering background had not been asked for. An opportunity had thus been extended to the candidates of Civil Engineering by granting them permission to appear in the written test and, therefore, there cannot be any element of mala fide intention, it is stated that the Environmental Engineering is an inter-disciplinary field. The subject related to Environmental science and Engineering are prescribed as elective course by many universities for the disciplines of civil, mechancial, chemical and applied science etc. Thus the questions related to environmental engineering find place in many disciplines. 4. I have heard Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Sr, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A.K.Trivedi, learned S.C.C.G. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have vehemently argued on the preliminary objection taken by the respondents that Central Fuel Research Institute is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, no writ lies against C.S.I.R. or its constituent Institutes. In this connection learned counsel heavily relied upon a direct decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sabhajit Tewary V/s. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1975 S.C.1329. 6. I will first deaf with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether Council of Scientific & Industrial Research is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I will first deaf with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether Council of Scientific & Industrial Research is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. In this connection I would like to refer and quote the extract of the advertisement issued by the respondent- Central Fuel Research Institute, Dhanbad of appointment of technical persons in the Institute which reads as under: "CENTRAL FUEL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, DHANBAD BIHAR, 828 108 (CSIR Ministry of Science & Technology, Govt, of India CAREER OPPORTUNITY FOR RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS) Advertisement No. R/E/1/1998. CENTRAL FUEL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CFRI) is a premier R&DCentre of the Government of India within the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research. It is Indias leading and largest centre in Coal Science and Technology. It is the first Government R&D Organisation to have acquired ISO 9001 certification. Its main campus is in Dhanbad, Bihar and out station units are situated at Nagpur, Bilaspur, Ranchi and Raniganj. The Institute is actively promoting joint technology programmes with industry in coal preparation and Carbonisation. Energy Resources assessment Solid and Liquid Fuels, Energy Efficiency and Waste Management it is intended to intensify activities in the areas of environmental impact assessment and energy efficiency studies new areas of research could also be opened up depending upon the expertise and its need for the country." In the counter affidavit no facts and materials have been disclosed to show that the respondents-Institute is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution save and except the respondents only relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sabhajit Tewary V/s. Union of India and ors. ( AIR 1975 SC 1329 ). 7. On the other hand, in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it is, inter alia, stated that the memorandum of Association of the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research Institute would reveal that the object of the council is to implement and give effect to the resolution moved by the Honble Dewan Bahadur Sir A.Ramaswami Mudaliar, Honble Member of the Department of Commerce of the Govt, of India and passed by the Legislative Assembly on the 14th November, 1941 and accepted by the Govt. of India. of India. The Assembly recommended to the Governor General in Council that a fund called the Industrial Research Fund be constituted for the purpose of fostering industrial development in this country and that provision be made in the Budget for an annual grant of rupees ten lakhs to the fund for a period of five years. The object of the Council being scientific and industrial/applied research of national importance, its major activities are research and development projects sponsored by industrials in the public/private sector and others. Its further object is of research and development of and continuous improvement of indigenous technology and adaptation and development of imported technology. Various other objects have been mentioned in the supplementary affidavit including arrangements with foreign scientific agencies and institutions for exchange of scientists, study tours, training in specialised areas of science and technology conducting joint projects, providing technical assistances in the establishment of scientific institutions and for other matters. The memorandum further provides that the society has to maintain proper and annual account including the balance sheet in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Govt. in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The accounts of the Society is to be audited only by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is provided that the conditions of service of officers and staff of the society is to be governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the Central Civil Services (Contract) (sic) Rules. 8. In Sabhajit Tewarys case the Apex Court took the view that since the Council of Scientific Industrial Institute (CSIR) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, it does not have a statutory character like the Oil and Natural Gas Commission or the Life Insurance Corporation or Industrial Finance Corporation. It is a society incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. Their Lordships, therefore, held that CSIR being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, cannot be held to be a department of the Government and is a State or Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is a society incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. Their Lordships, therefore, held that CSIR being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, cannot be held to be a department of the Government and is a State or Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the case of Ajay Hasia V/s. Khalid Mazid reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 the question which fell for consideration was as to whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is an Authority falling within the definition of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In that case the writ petitioner challenged the vaiidity and admission made in the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar which is one of the colleges in the country sponsored by the Govt. of India. The college was established and its administration and management was carried on by the society registered under the Jammu & Kashmir Societies Registration Act, 1898. Answering the question their lordships held as under : "We may point out that it is immaterial for this purpose whether the Corporation is created by a Statute or under a Statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. The Corporation may be a statutory Corporation created by a Statute or it may be a Govt. company or a Company formed under the Companies Act, 1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 or any other similar statute. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the Government is not limited to a Corporation created by a Statute but is equally applicable to a Company or Society in a given case, it would have to be decided on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the Company or Society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of expression authority in Article 12. It is also necessary to add that merely a juristic entity may be an authority and, therefore State within the meanming of Article 12, it may not be elevated to the position of State for the purpose of Arts. 209, 310 and 311 which find a place in Part XIV. The definition of State in Art. 12 which includes an authority within the territory of India or under the control of government of India is not limited in its application only to part III and by virtue of Article 36, to part IV, it does not extend to other provisions of the Constitution and hence the juristic entity which may be State for the purpose of part III and IV would not be so for the purpose of part XIV or by other provision of the Constitution. That is why the decision of this court in S.L.Agrawal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1970)3 SCR 363 : ( AIR 1970 SC 1150 ), and other case involving the applicability of Article 311 have no relevance to the issue before us". 10. Their lordships noticed the earlier decision rendered in Ajay Hasias case (supra) and observed that the test which the court applied for determining this question was the same as the one laid down in the International Airport Authoritys case and approved by their lordships, namely, whether the Council was an instrumentality or agency of the government. Their lordships observed that the implicity assented to the proposition that if the Council were an agency of the government it would undoubtedly be an Authority. Their lordships observed that the implicity assented to the proposition that if the Council were an agency of the government it would undoubtedly be an Authority. But, having regard to the various features enumerated in the judgement, the court held that the council was not an agency of the Government and hence could not be regarded as an Authority. 11. Again the decision in the Sabhajit Tewarys case (supra) has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of P.K.Ramchandranan Iyer V/s. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 541 . Their lordship have held:- "Much water has Sown down the Jamuna since the dicta in Sabhajit Tewarys case and conceding that it is not specifically overruled in later decision, its ratio is considerably watered down so as to be a decision confined to its own facts. The case is wholly distinguishable on the facts apart from the later indicia formulated by the court for ascertaining whether a body is other authority, within the meaning of Article 12. A mere comparison of the history of ICAR as extensively set out hereinbefore and the setting up of.CIIR wouid clearly show that ICAR came into existence as a department of the Government, containued to be an attached office of the Government even though it was registered as a society and wholly financed by the Government and the taxing power of the State was invoked to make it financially viable and to which independent research institutes set up by the Government were transferred. None of these features was present in the case of CSIR and, therefore, the decision in Sabhajit Tewarys case would render no assistance and would be clearly distinguishable. 12. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Hasias case (supra) and Ramchandranan Iyers case (supra) and also regard being had to the facts stated by the petitioner in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit, I am of the opinion that the respondents, namely, Central Fuel Research institute which is a wing of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is an Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and consequently the writ application filed by the petitioner is maintainable. 13. 13. The next question then falls for consideration is whether the respondents were justified in supplying the questions set with answersheets for mechanical engineering instead of supplying question of Environmental Engineering. From perusal of advertisement (annexure 2) it appears that it has been clearly stated that the respondent-Institute needs highly motivated and competent professionals and support technical personnel to work on the frontier technology development and applications in the energy/resources industry focussing primarily on coal, steel and power sectors. Candidates for scientific (Group IV) need to have impressive academic background in applied science or in chemical, mechanical, mineral or environmental engineering disciplines and preferably relevant professional experience, Chemistry Graduates with molecular modeling experience and engineers with design, scale up, modeling and computer application, technology commercialisation project management, marketing and business development interests were especially made eligible to apply for the said post. It is, therefore, clear that persons having impressive academic background in applied science, chemical, mechanical, mineral and environmental engineering were needed. 14. From perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that the test papers were set in the following disciplines :. (i) Applied Science. (ii) Chemical Engineering. (iii) Electrical and Electronics Engineering. (iv) Environmental Engineering. (v) Mechanical Engineering and (vi) Mineral Engineering. 15. It further appears that the advertisement clearly specified the academic background expected of the applicants. Civil engineering background had not been asked for. However, an opportunity was extended to the candidates of civil engineering by granting them permission to appear in the written test. it, therefore, does not appear any mala fide intention on the part of the respondents in supplying question set with answer sheet of mechannial engineering to the petitioner. Although in para 21 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he learnt from the candidates that seperate group of question papers have been set including the question of environmental engineering but this fact is not supported by any document nor the statement has been correctly affidavited. Moreover, the respondents have denied and disputed the statement and very categorically explained it in para 5 of the counter affidavit. 16. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in this writ application. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.