JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. Petitioners, who all claim themselves to be employees of what is known as Bihar Renewal Energy Development Agency (for brevity BREDA) are aggrieved by certain rules, which have been notified by them, which has serious consequences for them while they are in service or after their superannuation that too after having spent their entire life in the service of BREDA. 2. The Rules, whose quashing is sought by the petitioner, is contained in Annexure-6 and is known as the Bihar Renewal Energy Development Agency Service Rules, 2014. The attack is on rule 13 (iii) to (vi) which are the bone of contention in the present writ application. 3. Though BREDA is an organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act on 04.07.1987, the State of Bihar has a pervasive control over the working of the said society as Secretary, Energy Department has been made ex-officio Chairman and the Members or the Board of Directors of the said agency are all Government of Bihar functionaries. The memorandum and article of association, which has been annexed as Annexure-1, does indicate that the State of Bihar has all pervasive control over the said agency and, therefore, it is the stand of the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that any Rule, notified by them and which affects the fundamental right of equality, guaranteed under the Constitution of India, be it Article 14 or 16, can make such Rules vulnerable and liable for challenge. 4. Before the constitution of BREDA, the Energy Department used to handle the objective, for which the agency was constituted. From various sources and methods, employees of BREDA were appointed, hired or deputed. This fact also stands corroborated by reading rule 5 of the 2014 Rule, because the rule makers themselves have realised the above fact while drafting the Rules and notifying it. From various sources and methods, employees of BREDA were appointed, hired or deputed. This fact also stands corroborated by reading rule 5 of the 2014 Rule, because the rule makers themselves have realised the above fact while drafting the Rules and notifying it. Rule 5 is reproduced herein below : "5- cszMk esa fu;qfDr%& czsMk esa fuEu Js.kh ds dehZ dk;Zjr~ gksaxs%& lfpo mtkZ ds vkns'k ls fu;qDrA v/;{k czsMk≶&lfpo mtkZ ds vkns'k ls fu;qDrA lfpo mtkZ vFkok v/;{k cszMk≶&lfpo mtkZ ds vkns'k@Lohd`fr ls vFkok muds vuqeksnu inkf/kdkjh@ mi&fodkl vk;qDr }kjk fu;qDrA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa funs'kd czsMk }kjk fu;qDrA blds vfrfjDr czsMk esa fuEu izdkj ls Hkh dehZ dk;Zjr gksaxs%& (i) czsMk esa jkT; ljdkj ds foHkkx vFkok vU; fuxe@cksMZ vkfn ls izfrfu;qfDr ij dk;Zjr~ deZpkjhA (ii) vuqcU/k ij dk;Zjr~ dehZA vuqcU/k ij fu;qfDr lkekU;r% ,d o"kZ ds fy, dh tk;sxhA (iii) outsourcing ds ek/;e ls ckg~; ,tsalh ls j[ks x;s dehZ" 5. Because of the diversity of appointment, engagement or hiring of employees, the respondents BREDA authorities have also formulated rule 13, which has caused the heart burning amongst the employees. Rule 13 is also reproduced for ready reference : "13- osru fu/kkZj.k] iqujh{k.k ,oa vU; 'krsZ%& (i) czsMk dss dfeZ;ksa dks jkT; ljdkj ds leku xszM is ds inksa ds vuq:i osru ,oa vU; HkRrk ns; gksxkA (ii) czsMk ds dfeZ;ksa dk osru iqujh{k.k }kjk le; & le; ij fuxZr vkns'kksa ds vkyksd esa izcU/k lfefr dh vuq'kalk ij mtkZ foHkkx dh lgefr ls fd;k tk;sxkA (iii) czsMk ds dfeZ;ksa dks isa'ku ns; ugha gksxkA (iv) czsMk xBu ds ckn ls czsMk esa fu;qDr lHkh czsMk dehZ bZ0ih0,Q0 ds rgr~ vkPNkfnr gksaxsA (v) ek= cszMk ds xBu ds iwoZ lfpo] mtkZ foHkkx }kjk l`ftr in ds fo:) fu;qDr ,oa lsokjr% dehZ mtkZ foHkkx esa dfeZ;ksa ds vuq:i th0ih0,Q0 ,DV ds rgr~ vkPNkfnr gksaxsA (vi) czsMk ds xBu ds iwoZ mtkZ foHkkx ds funsZ'k ij ftyk Lrj ij xfBr lfefr@ftyk Lrj ij fu;qfDr ,oa dk;Zjr dehZ th0ih0,Q0 ls vkPNkfnr gksaxsA (vii) jkT; ljdkj ds fu;eksa ds vuq:i miknku dh jkf'k cszMk ds dfeZ;ksa dks Hkh ns; gksxhA funs'kd] czsMk l{ke vf/kdkjh gksaxsA" 6. Even though BREDA was registered in the year 1987, no separate Rules were formulated laying down the service conditions of its employees. Even though BREDA was registered in the year 1987, no separate Rules were formulated laying down the service conditions of its employees. In fact, this led to many litigations and it was only because of the decisive interference by the High Court that after long delay only in the year 2014 the Rules, governing the service conditions etc., have been notified. Since these Rules has the effect of taking away certain rights already created in favour of the employees, like grant of pension, contribution to GPF and other service conditions, being at par with Government employees, the further categorisation of different employees and different benefits, which are required to be extended to them in terms of rule 13 is surely a matter of alarm amongst the employees. Quite a few of whom, admittedly were hired by the State Government and were either deputed or absorbed in BREDA. 7. The Court has been taken through Rules 5 and 13 extensively to demonstrate as to how irrational and arbitrary two provisions have been made. In fact, effort has been made on behalf of the respondents to create a class amongst a class, which is not permissible. This is evident from reading of rule 13, sub-rule (vi). 8. Counsel, representing the BREDA has filed counter affidavit and submits that since it is a society registered under the Society Registration Act, most of these employees, who have been hired by BREDA, are temporary employees and that the writ application may not lie against the agency, because the object and purpose for setting of such an agency was a program, initiated by the Government of India for giving impetus to generation of non-conventional sources of energy. Plea is also taken that BREDA is not a Government department. 9. BREDA may not be a Government department, but a look at the memorandum and article of association, contained in Annexure-1, surely convinces this Court that it partakes the nature of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court is in agreement with the stand of the learned Sr. Counsel that BREDA partakes nature of State and there is all pervasive control of the State over the affairs of the agency. This position also further stands fortified by reading of 2014 Rules, which are subject matter of challenge, which itself indicates as to how, when and who made appointments to the agency. Counsel that BREDA partakes nature of State and there is all pervasive control of the State over the affairs of the agency. This position also further stands fortified by reading of 2014 Rules, which are subject matter of challenge, which itself indicates as to how, when and who made appointments to the agency. The writ application, therefore, is maintainable and since fundamental rights of these petitioners are violated or affected, the Court will not shy away from accepting the writ application and exercising its authority. 10. After having heard the submissions on behalf of the parties extensively, the Court is satisfied that the impugned provisions of the Rules, which is rule 13 (iii) to rule (vi) violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the Court does not hesitate in declaring that the 2014 Rules, which has been put in place after protracted delay on the part of the agency is a sad reflection on the quality of the drafting which can also be labeled as amateurish. The Rules shows lack of understanding on the part of the agency while dealing with the valuable rights of its employees. A case is made out, therefore, for quashing the impugned Rules, rule 13 (iii) to (vi) with a direction upon the agency to re-draft and reformulate the service conditions, which satisfies Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. The agency cannot hide behind the camouflage that since it is a registered society, it is not State or a limb of the State. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, writ application is allowed with observation/direction as above.