JUDGMENT :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking parity in pay scales with certain other salesmen employed in the services of the respondent society i.e., Rajasthan State Co-Operative Consumers Federation Ltd. (CONFED), Jaipur. The grievance essentially relates to fixation of pay and alleged discrimination in extending higher pay scales granted to other employees.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. The said issue, being foundational, is required to be considered at the threshold.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sole respondent is a registered cooperative society governed by its own service rules and administrative framework. It is contended that the Society is neither created by a statute nor is subject to deep and pervasive governmental control and therefore does not fall within the ambit of ‘State’ as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is further argued that the mere performance of certain public functions or engagement in activities beneficial to the public at large does not ipso facto render a cooperative society amenable to writ jurisdiction.

5. It is also contended that the dispute raised by the petitioners pertains to service conditions and pay fixation governed by internal service rules of the Society and in case of any alleged breach of such rules, the petitioners have alternative remedies available in accordance with law. Therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent–Society discharges public functions and is engaged in activities having public character. It is contended that the High Court while discharging jurisdiction under Article 226, possesses wide powers to issue writs not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also ‘for any other purpose’ against any person or authority performing public duties.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors., 2024 INSC 501, on similar facts, framed the following issues and observed as under:-

“6. The following two questions of law fall for our consideration:

a. Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it? In other words, whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

b. Even if it is assumed that the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a body performing public duty amenable to writ jurisdiction, whether all its decisions are subject to judicial review or only those decisions which have public law element therein can be judicially reviewed under the writ jurisdiction

42. In view of the aforesaid, nothing more is required to be discussed in the present appeals. We are of the view that the High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents herein holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the school run by the Appellant Society imparts education. Imparting education involves public duty and therefore public law element could also be said to be involved. However, the relationship between the respondents herein and the appellant society is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract . If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element. The school cannot be said to be discharging any pu