JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devi Prasad, J.—Petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that respondents may be directed to pay salary to the petitioner of the post of Clerk. According to petitioner’s Counsel petitioner was appointed in the year 1998 in pursuance to advertisement in the institution namely; Sardar Patel Kanya Junior High School (in short hereinafter referred as School). Petitioner was duly appointed by Selection Committee on the post of Clerk in the School in question on 31.3.1998. Since then petitioner has been continuing in service on the post of Clerk. 2. It has been submitted by petitioner’s Counsel that opposite party No. 2 had granted approval of the appointment of teachers and staff of the school in question on 3.1.1999. According to petitioner’s Counsel the School in question was recognised institution and petitioner’s appointment was also approved by opposite party No. 2 alongwith others on 3.1.1999. 3. Petitioner’s Counsel submits that School in question was provided grant in aid w.e.f. 1.11.2006. When the School was included in the list of grant-in-aid, respondents committee of management had taken decision to appoint other person in place of petitioner and in consequence thereof petitioner was dis-engaged from service w.e.f. January, 2007. Accordingly, petitioner had prayed that respondents may be directed to pay salary to the petitioner and also permit to discharge duty. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in 1991 (9) LCD 103, S.C. Pandey v. District Basic Education Officer and others, and proceeded to submit that present writ petition is maintainable. However, argument advanced by the petitioner’s Counsel seems to be misconceived. 5. Admittedly, Committee of Management is society registered under Societies Registration Act. Accordingly, whether the School in question which is a private institution managed by a Society registered under Societies Registration Act may be amenable to writ jurisdiction? Whether the School in question is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India? Whether petition is maintainable? 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a leading case reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 , Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi held that not only such organization should be financed by State but also the State should have deep and pervasive control over day to day functioning of the body. Whether petition is maintainable? 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a leading case reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 , Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi held that not only such organization should be financed by State but also the State should have deep and pervasive control over day to day functioning of the body. The financial aid granted by Government to an establishment cannot be sole criteria to decide as to whether an establishment is a State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not. Relevant portion from the judgment of Ajai Hasia (supra) (SCC 737 para 9) is reproduced as under : “1. One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would 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 a relevant factor.....whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is 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 functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporations an instrumentality or agency of Government. 6. Specifically, if a department of Government 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." 7. One other judgment reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111 , Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, by majority opinion the Constitution Bench of Apex Court had affirmed the test formulated in Ajai Hasia’s case (supra) in the following words : “The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be -whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State." 8. In the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others, (2003) 10 SCC 733 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised against the private bodies. However, in the event of violation of certain statutory provisions in certain condition, mandamus may be issued for compliance. For convenience relevant portion from the judgment of Federal Bank Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under:- “Such private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But in certain circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutes which need to be complied with by all concerned including the private companies. For example, there are certain legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the Factories Act or for maintaining proper environment, say the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc. or statutes of the like nature which fasten certain duties and responsibilities statutorily upon such private bodies which they are bound to comply with. If they violate such a statutory provision a writ would certainly be issued for compliance with those provisions. For instance, if a private employer dispenses with the service of its employee in violation of the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, in innumerable cases the High Court interfered and has issued the writ to the private bodies and the companies in that regard. But the difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance which or violation of any statutory provisions by the private body. In that event a writ may not be issued at all. Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to.” 9. But the difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance which or violation of any statutory provisions by the private body. In that event a writ may not be issued at all. Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to.” 9. While deciding the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and interpreting word “other authorities” enshrined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India in a case reported in (2005) 1 SCC 149 , Virendra Kumar Srivastava v. U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam and another, Hon’ble Supreme Court had followed the test laid down by majority opinion of Constitution Bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) their Lordship had reiterated that while holding a body as “State” or instrumentality agency of State, it must be seen that the control of the State is not only regulatory but it should be deep and pervasive. The control of the State should be in such a manner that day to day functioning of the establishment concerned is watched, supervised and controlled by the various departmental authorities of the State Government. The extension of financial aid minus deep and pervasive control shall not create a ground to decline an establishment as State instrumentality. 10. The test laid down in Ajay Hasia (supra) has been reiterated by Apex Court in recent Constitution Bench judgment reported in 2005 (4) SCC 649 , Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others. While interpreting Article 12 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra) that the intention of the constitutional framer while incorporating Article 12 was to treat such authority as instrumentality of State which has been created by law and has got certain power to make laws, frame rules and regulations and must be under deep and pervasive control of the State Government. For convenience relevant portion from the judgment of Zee Telefilms (supra) is reproduced as under : “10. From the above, it is seen that the intention of the constitution framers in incorporating this article was to treat such authority which has been created by law and which has got certain powers to make laws to make rules and regulations to be included in the term “other authorities" as found presently in Article 12”. 11. From the above, it is seen that the intention of the constitution framers in incorporating this article was to treat such authority which has been created by law and which has got certain powers to make laws to make rules and regulations to be included in the term “other authorities" as found presently in Article 12”. 11. The dictum of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) and Zee Telefilms (supra) has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in 2005 (5) SCC 632 , Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and another v. District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) and others. It has been held by Apex Court that unless test indicated in Ajai Hasia’s case (supra) is complied with a cooperative society may not be treated as State. The fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India are normally enforced against the State action or action by other authorities who may come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised against the private bodies. Accordingly, it has been held that the cooperative societies constituted by the members of a voluntary association shall not be a State being Government by own bye-laws. Relevant portion from the judgement of Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under : “The fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution are normally enforced against State action or action by other authorities who may come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is not possible to argue that a person has a fundamental right to become a member of a voluntary association or of a cooperative society governed by its own bye-laws. So long as this position holds, we are of the view that it is not possible, especially for a Registrar who is an authority under the Cooperative Societies Act, to direct a cooperative society to admit as a member, a person who does not qualify to be a member as per the bye-laws registered under the Act. Nor can a Registrar direct in terms of Section 14 of the Act to amend the bye-laws since it could not be said that such an amendment, as directed in this case is necessary or desirable in the interest of the appellant society. Nor can a Registrar direct in terms of Section 14 of the Act to amend the bye-laws since it could not be said that such an amendment, as directed in this case is necessary or desirable in the interest of the appellant society. What is relevant under Section 14 of the Act is the interests of the society and the necessity in the context of that interest. It is not the interest of an individual member or an aspirant to a membership.” Thus, much water has flown from the river of Ganga, Yamuna and Gomti after the Division Bench judgment (supra) relied upon by the petitioner’s Counsel to assert that writ petition is maintainable against the school in question which is a private institution managed by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 12. Admittedly, committee of management in question is governed by its own bye-laws. Though Government provides grant-in-aid for the payment of salary to teachers and staff of the school in question but it lacks deep and pervasive control over the committee of management. The right of duties of the members of the committee of management are governed by its bye-laws framed under Societies Registration Act. The interference of Government is only regulatory to the extent it pays the salary to teachers and staff. Administrative control over the school and its staff or teacher remain in the hands of office bearer and the members of the committee of management or its general bodies. Atleast the appointment of class III and Class IV employees falls within the hands of management and principal of the school. Buildings and infrastructure are also established and managed and maintained by the committee of management and the members of the society in accordance to its bye-laws. Accordingly, private school may be getting grant-in-aid from the State Government shall not be a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, hence writ petition shall not be maintainable. 13. However, since grant-in-aid is provided by the State Government it shall be statutory duty of the Basic Education Officer or the District Inspector of Schools as the case may be, to see that salary is being paid to the teachers and staff in accordance to law. 13. However, since grant-in-aid is provided by the State Government it shall be statutory duty of the Basic Education Officer or the District Inspector of Schools as the case may be, to see that salary is being paid to the teachers and staff in accordance to law. In the event of non-payment of salary to the teachers and staff concerned authorities have got ample power to take appropriate action in accordance to statutory provisions to ensure the payment of salary. Accordingly remedy is available to the petitioner to approach Basic Education Officer to ventilate his grievance. 14. Petitioner had already submitted a representation to the competent authority, copies of which have been filed as Annexure-6 and 7 to the writ petition. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation to opposite party No. 2 within a period of two weeks and in case, such representation is submitted, the opposite party No. 2 shall decide the same in accordance to law by passing a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall communicate the decision to the petitioner. While doing so, opposite party No. 2 shall provide opportunity of hearing to the Manager or competent office bearer of the school in question and shall also peruse the original records. Since this Court has not entered into merit of the case issuance of notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 15. Subject to aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. 16. Let certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties Counsel on payment of usual charges within three, days. ————