K. N. Singh. J. - (1.) THIS is a petition by Awadesh Narain Pandey who was selected and placed on the panel prepared for appointment to the post of Peon cum Farrash/Armed Guard in the service of Central Bank of India, Kanpur Region. The panel was revised in 1972 as a result of which a number of sons and daughters of the employees of the Bank were brought on the panel with the result the petitioners' chances of employment were receded. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition challenging the validity of the action of the authorities of the Central Bank in giving preference to the sons and daughters of the Bank employees. The petitioner has claimed relief for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities of the Central Bank not to fill vacancies from the sons and daughters who were empaneled in 1972, unless the original panel prepared in 1971 is exhausted.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondents have acted in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution in bringing the names of sons and daughters of the employees of the Bank on the panel prepared for employment in the Bank. On behalf of the respondent Bank it is urged that the Central Bank of India is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution hence even if there is any irregularity in the drawing of panel no writ can legally be issued to the respondent Bank which is neither 'State' nor statutory body. In the alternative it is further urged that the respondent Bank has not violated any statutory provision in revising the panel. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed on Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857. In that case the State Electricity Board constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, was held to be "State" within the meaning of Article 12. In coming to that conclusion the Court examined the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, and held that since the Electricity Board was a corporation having quasi Governmental powers and revenue producing enterpirse it was an authority created by Statute on which powers were conferred by the Statute to carry out Governmental and quasi Governmental functions. In the instant case, the Central Bank of India has not been constituted by any Parliamentary Act nor it has been assigned by any Governmental or quasi Governmental functions by any Statute. The Central Bank of India was nationalised under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. Under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act the undertaking of the existing Banks as mentioned in the schedule to the Act stood transferred to the corresponding new Bank as mentioned in the Schedule. Prior to the enforcement of the new Act the Central Bank of India Limited was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its own constituents and. Board of Directors. After the enforcement of 1970 Act a new Bank, Central Bank of India, came into existence. Under Section 11 of the Act the Central Bank of India is deemed to be a company. The Board of Directors of the Bank are constituted in accordance with the Regulations framed under Section 19. The nature of function of the Bank is to carry on commercial activities. It is not entrusted with any of the Governmental or quasi Governmental functions. The 1970 Act does not confer any power to frame regulations or issue any of orders binding others or to take action against those who violate its regulations. No doubt some of its activities are regulated by statutory provisions but that alone does not characterise the Central Bank of India a statutory body or "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
(3.) IN Sabhajit Tewari v. Union of INdia, AIR 1975 SC 1329 the Council of Scientific and INdustrial Research, a society registered under the Socities Registration Act, was not held to be authority within the meaning of Article 12 on the ground that the Society did not have statutory character like the Oil and Natural Gas Commission or the Life INsurance Corporation. The fact that the Prime Minister was President or the Government appointed nominees or that the Government could terminate the membership was not found sufficient to confer the status of statutory body or statutory authority on the Council of Scientific and INdustrial Research. IN Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1975 SC 1331, it was again held that the expression "other authorities' in Article 12 would include only those authorities which are created by statute and which function in accordance with the Statute. If an authority is not statutory IN nature it would not fall within the expression "other authorities' occurring in Article 12 of the Constitution. In Executive Committee of Vaish Degree v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1976 SO 888 the Supreme Court laid down criteria for determining the nature of a statutory body. Fazal Ali, J. observed thus : "Before an institution can be statutory body it must be created by or under Statute and own its existence to a statute. This must be the primary thing which has got to be established. Here a distinction must be made between an institution which is not created by or under a statute but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper maintenance and administration of the institution. There have been a number of institutions which though not created by or under any statute have adopted certain statutory provisions but that by it self is not sufficient to clothe the institution with a statutory character." On the application of above noted tests the respondent Bank cannot be held to be an authority. The Bank is a public Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It has been carrying on the business of banking. It is not the creature of statute. Under the 1970 Act the administration of the Bank was taken and it was constituted into a new Bank, but it continues to be a company. The Central Government exercise control over its administration and policies, but that does not alter its character. There is no statutory rule regulating preparation of panel or the recruitment or absorption of candidates whose names may be included in the panel and as such the action of the Bank is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. I therefore, hold that the Bank is not a statutory authority or "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and no writ of mandamus can be issued as prayed by the petitioner.;