JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J.

Petitioner seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim for promotion as Deputy Manager w.e.f. 7th of July, 2017 i.e. the date from which his juniors stand promoted vide Annexure P-1.

2. As per the facts pleaded in the writ petition, petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1-Bank. He joined the services as Clerk on 31st of January, 1995. Petitioner claims that he was due for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager from the post of Assistant Manager yet he was ignored despite being at Seniority No.48 whereas private respondents who were at Seniority Nos.49 and 50 stand promoted. Petitioner represented to the respondent for assigning reason for ignoring him from consideration. The representation has been placed on record at Annexure P-6 which has not been decided as yet. Petitioner claims that respondent No.1 conveyed through communication dated 1st of September, 2017 that in ACR for the year 2016-17 he has been assessed as 'Average'. Petitioner claims that the remarks were never conveyed to him.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the settled law, ACR not communicated to an employee cannot be read to defeat his right to be considered for promotion. Reliance is being placed upon Rajinder Kumar v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., CWP No.20465 of 2012, decided on 13.05.2016; and by the Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others, 2008(8) SCC 725 and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and others , 2013 (5) SCR 1004 .

4. Ld. Counsel representing the respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary issue w.r.t. the maintainability of the writ petition claiming that the respondent-Bank is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Thus, the same is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It has been averred that the Cooperative Society does not fall within the definition of 'State' as enumerated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, as per law laid down by Apex Court in S.S. Rana v. Registrar Cooperative Societies and another , (2006)11 SCC 634 and in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Sultanpur, U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and others, JT 2003(8) SC 235 the present writ petition is not maintainable.

5. In order to controvert the preliminary objection raised by respondent, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon AIR 1982 P&H 228 titled as Pritam Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others and U.P. State Co-Operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others decided on 18th of December, 1998. It has been claimed that since the Bank has been constituted under the Punjab Act No.26 of 1957 titled as 'the Punjab Cooperative Agricultural Development Banks Act, 1957', the case of the petitioner would be fully covered by the law laid down by Apex Court in U.P. State Co-Operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (supra).

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

7. The issues involved in the present writ petition are :

a) whether Cooperative Society falls within the ambit of 'State' as enumerated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India?'.

b) 'whether the writ petition would be maintainable against a Cooperative Society despite the fact that it does not fall within the ambit of 'State'?.

8. So far as the first issue is concerned Seven Judges Bench of Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology , (2002) 5 SCC 111 while considering the test