IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before: The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya WPA 2023 OF 2026 Sk. Rajibul Islam & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & others For the Petitioners : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Advocate Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anindya Sundar Das Mr. Shounak Ghosh Ms. Suva Gayen Ms. Paramita Mondal Mr. Suman Halder Ms. Madhurina Dutta Ms. Rebika Sultana ….. advocates For the respondent nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pratip Mukherjee Mr. Triptimoy Talukder Mr. Dibyendu Ghosh Mr. Diptomoy Talukder …… advocates For the respondent no.5 : Mr. Krishnendu Sarkar Mr. Anuvab Das …… advocates For the respondent no.6 :Mr. Ankit Sureka Mr. Biplob Das Heard on : 21.05.2026 Judgment on : 09.07.2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The writ petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to forbear from giving any effect and/or further effect to the recruitment notice published in daily newspaper on 18.10.2025 and the examination notification published on 14.01.2026. 2. Petitioners claim to have come across an advertisement published in a Bengali Newspaper on 18.10.2025 by the respondent Co-operative Society inviting applications for recruitment of 18 candidates on contractual basis. The minimum qualification for the said post was stated to be Madhyamik Pass and the age limit has to be between 18 to 40 years as on 01.10.2025. All the petitioners claim to possess the eligibility criteria for recruitment pursuant to the said advertisement. However, the petitioners state that they could not apply for the advertised post as the advertisement does not specify as to whether the posts advertised are under Group A, Group B, Group C or Group D. Petitioners further state that on 14.01.2026 they came across another advertisement issued by the second respondent in Bengali Daily notifying that the recruitment examination will be held on 01.02.2026. 3. Challenging the aforesaid recruitment notification and the examination notification, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the minimum qualification for appointment to different posts of co-operative society has been specifically mentioned in Paragraph 3 to Appendix 2 Chapter V under Rule 106 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 (for short “the 2011 Rules”). He contended that the minimum qualification as indicated in the employment notification does not match with the minimum qualification for appointment to either Group C or Group D post. He further contended that Section 94 of the West Bengal Co- operative Societies Act, 2006 (for short “the 2006 Act”) provides that the Co- operative Service Commission shall select persons for appointment to various posts which are to be filled up by the co-operative society. He further contended that even the procedure for direct recruitment of staff by co-operative societies as specifically provided in Rule 105 of 2011 Rules has not been followed by the respondent society in the case on hand. He, thus, contended that the recruitment notification and the examination notification are liable to be set aside and quashed by this Court. 5. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior advocate appearing for the respondent society raised objection against the maintainability of the instant writ petition. He contended that the State Government only has 5.36% shares out of the total shareholding of this respondent society. He further contended that the petitioner has not produced any material to satisfy this Court that there is deep and pervasive control of the State Government over the affairs of the society. He further submitted that the respondent society cannot be said to be a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He, thus, submitted that a writ petition against the respondent society is not maintainable. In support of such contention Mr. Bandyopadhyay placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Amar Kumar Malick vs. State of West Bengal and ors. reported at (2023) SCC Online Cal 842 and a decision of a Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Vs. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat reported at (1993) Mh.L.J.1. He further contended that the writ petitioners are rank outsiders as they have not participated in the recruitment process and thus have no locus standi to challenge the recruitment process. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Eswari vs. Chief Secretary reported at (2023) SCC Online Mad 403. 6. Mr. Sureka, learned advocate for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies also raised objection against maintainability of this writ petition. He contended that the respondent no. 2 society is a democratic association controlled by their members and the affairs of the society are managed and administered by persons elected or appointed by the members. He contended that the respondent no. 2 is a co-operative credit structure entity and thus enjoys autonomy in financial and internal administrative matters including recruitment of staff. He further contended that the provisions laid down under Rule 106 of 2011 Rules and the Appendix 2 Chapter V do not have any manner of application to the respondent no. 2 being a credit structure entity. He thus contended that since the recruitment of staff is not governed either by the provisions laid down under Section 94 of the 2006 Act nor the provisions of Rule 106 of the 2011 Rules, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rana vs. Registrar, Co-operative Society reported at (2006) 11 SCC 634 and a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Subodh Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal and ors. reported at (2025) SCC Online Cal 2666. 7. In reply, Mr. Sanyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the State has a shareholding as admitted by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in its affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent society shall squarely fall within the definition “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the respondent no. 2 society is a bank and, therefore, performs an important public function. He, thus, submitted that this by itself is sufficient for coming to a conclusion that the respondent no. 2 is a “State” under Article 12. He further contended that recruitment of staffs in co-operative societies is controlled by the 2006 Act read with the 2011 Rules. He contended that the respondent society has an obligation to comply with the provisions of the 2006 Act and the 2011 Rules in the matter of recruitment of staff to such society. He contended that there has been a breach of such obligation by the respondent society while issuing the recruitment notification and the employment notification. He contended that it is well settled that in case of breach of an obligation under a statute or the statutory rules a writ petition is maintainable and in support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Arjed Ali Gazi vs. State of West Bengal reported at (1990) 2 CHN 284. Page 5 of 11 8. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. 9. The State policy on co-operative societies has been specifically stated in Section 2 of the 2006 Act. It has been specifically stated therein that the State shall not interfere in the management and operation of the co- operative societies and shall recognize co-operative societies as democratic institutions owned, managed and controlled by members for their economic and social betterment, operating their business based on mutual aid and co- operative members. The co-operative societies are democratic associations controlled by their members who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions and their affairs shall be managed and administered by persons elected or appointed in the manner agreed by the members and accountable to them. 10. Section 94(1) of the 2006 Act states that the State Government shall constitute a Co-Operative Service Commission. Sub-section 5 of Section 94 states that the Commission shall select persons for appointment to such posts other than the posts of Group D category and post to be filled up by promotion in the co-operative societies mentioned in the 5th Schedule of the Act and while doing so, shall follow the procedure and guidelines as may be prescribed. 11. Section 43 of the 2006 Act deals with appointment of persons in the service of a co-operative society. Sub-section (1) states that the Board of Co- operative Society may from time to time, create posts of different categories of employees to assist the co-operative society in the performance of his duties and discharge of its function and such creation of posts shall only be made with prior approval by the general body. Sub-section (2) of Section 43 states that the Board of a Co-operative Society shall appoint, subject to the provisions to this Court, the Rules and the bylaws, such Officer and other employees in respect of which the posts are created under Sub-section (1). Page 6 of 11 12. Rule 104 A deals with the creation of Posts. Rule 105 prescribes the procedure for direct appointment of staff by co-operative societies. 13. Mr. Bhattacharyya would contend that any appointment to a post of the co- operative society shall be only against the sanctioned post. Mr. Bhattacharyya would further contend that selection of persons for appointment to such posts other than the post of Group D category shall be by the Co-operative Service Commission and for the purpose of direct recruitment of staff by co-operative society in Group D posts has to be done by following the procedure laid down under 2011 Rules. 14. Rule 106 of the 2011 Rules deal with the method of recruitment and conditions of service of the Officers and employees of co-operative societies. It states that the method of recruitment and conditions of service of the Officers and employees of co-operative societies (other than Co-operative Credit Structure Entities) shall, subject to the terms of specific contract, enforceable by law and the provisions of any law for the time being in force be as enunciated in the Appendix to the said chapter. Proviso thereto states that if any particular matter is not covered in the specific contract, the matter shall be guided by the method of recruitment and conditions of service as indicated in the Appendix to the said Chapter. 15. Mr. Bhattacharyya would contend that the minimum qualification for appointment to Group C post as stated in paragraph 3 of the Appendix to Chapter V is Madhyamik Pass certificate with knowledge in Computer Science and in case of Group D is that the candidate must have passed the annual examination of Class VIII of a Madhyamik School, recognised by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Mr. Bhattacharyya would contend that in the recruitment notification it has been specifically stated that the minimum qualification is Madhyamik Pass, but the knowledge in Computer Science has not been fixed as eligibility criteria in the recruitment notification. Thus, the minimum qualification for a Group C post has not been specified in the instant case. Page 7 of 11 16. The question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions for recruitment as laid down under Section 94 of the 2006 Act and the provisions under Rule 104A, 105, 105A and 106 shall be applicable in case of recruitment to the respondent society. 17. The “Co-Operative Credit Structure Entity” has been defined in Section 134B(1)(a) of the 2006 Act to include the West Bengal State Co-operative Bank, the District Central Co-operative Bank, a Primary Cultural Credit Co- operative Society, the West Bengal State Cultural and Rural Development Bank, a Primary Co-operative Cultural and Rural Development Bank. In course of argument. 18. Mr. Sanyal, learned Senior Counsel, in his usual fairness, did not dispute that the respondent society is a Co-operative Credit Structure Entity. 19. Chapter XIIIA has been inserted by the Co-operative Societies (Amendment Act) 2010 which was published in Kolkata Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 10.09.2010. 20. Chapter XIIIA consists of Section 134A, 134B and 134C. Section 134A states that notwithstanding, anything contrary or inconsistent contained in this Act or the Rules framed thereunder, or the bylaws of unregistered society or orders issued thereunder, the provisions of this Chapter shall have overriding effect. 21. Thus, in view of Section 134A, Chapter XIIIA shall have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In other words, Chapter XIIIA shall prevail over the provisions laid down under Section 94 of the 2006 Act. 22. Section 134C deals with special provisions applicable to the co-operative Credit Structure Entities. Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 134C states that a co-operative credit structure entity shall have autonomy in all financial and internal administrative matters including personnel policy, staffing, recruitment, posting and compensation to staff. Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 134C (2) the respondent society which is a Co- operative Credit Structure Entity shall have autonomy in the matter of recruitment of staff to the said society. 23. Rule 106 of the 2011 Rules excludes the Co-operative Credit Structure Entities from the applicability of the said provision as would be evident from a bare reading of Rule 106. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the recruitment of staffs by the respondent no. 2 society is not governed by the provisions laid down under the 2006 Act and the 2011 Rules. 25. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Amar Kumar Mallick (supra) held that a Co- operative Society excepting serving its members does not work for promotion and preservation of any public purpose. Any action of the society would not influence, control or govern the public at large and the traits of a State could not be attracted in case of a Co-operative Society. It was further held that agreement between a private party and a Co-operative Society would be a contract executed between two private entities and the dispute relating to such contract shall never be amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Division Bench reiterated the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if the State enters into the field of ordinary contract, the relations would no longer be governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of parties inter se. 26. In the case on hand, the respondent society issued employment notifications inviting candidates for appointment on contract basis. Such appointment would be governed by the contract that may be entered into between the selected candidates and the respondent society. Such contractual relationship shall not be governed by the constitutional provisions but by the terms of such contract which shall determine the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. 27. The respondent society has not been constituted under an Act. The State has no say in the affairs of the society though it may be true that the State holds the fractional shareholding in the said society. No material has been produced before this Court to show that the State exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the society for deep and pervasive control. The State is also not the majority shareholder. 28. In S.S. Rana (supra) it has been held that the question in each case would be whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government and such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive and 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. 29. In Subodh Kumar Mondal (supra) the Hon’ble Division Bench after noticing the admitted fact that the society comes within the ambit of Chapter XIIIA of the 2006 Act held that the said society being a credit co- operative society is not governed by the Rule 106 of 2011 Rules. In the light of the aforesaid observations the Hon’ble Division Bench held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the service conditions of the appellant therein were not governed by the statutory provisions and were in the realm of a contract. 30. This Court accordingly holds that the respondent Co-operative Society is a democratic association controlled by its members for their economic and social betterment. The actions of the Society would not influence, control or govern the public at large. Any dispute relating to an action taken by the Society does not involve any public law element and, therefore, shall never be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 31. By applying the proposition of law laid down in S.S. Rana (supra) and Subodh Kumar Mondal (supra) this Court holds that the writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent society is a Credit Structure Entity and the provisions of Rule 106 relating to recruitment shall not be applicable for appointment by the respondent society. Page 10 of 11 32. At this stage it would be relevant to take note of the decision in the case of Shamrao Vithal (supra) wherein it has been held that a co-operative society carrying on the business of banking even though governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 would not fall within the expression “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it was ultimately held that a writ petition cannot be maintained against the co-operative society carrying on the business of banking. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Sanyal that merely because the respondent society is carrying on the functions of a bank would fall within the expression “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 33. In Arjed Ali Gazi (supra) on facts it was held that it could not be established that the conditions of service of the appellant were controlled by the terms of contract between the parties and it appeared to the Court that the same have been left to be controlled by Rule 108 which is a statutory rule. On such facts it was held that the society has an obligation to comply with the said statutory rule and for breach of such obligation under statutory rules a writ petition is maintainable. 34. This Court has already held that Rule 106 of the 2011 Rules shall not be applicable to the respondent society being a Credit Structure Entity. Therefore, the decision in the case of Arjed Ali Gazi (supra) being distinguishable on facts cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. 35. In Eswari (supra) the petitioner therein without challenging the recruitment notification and without questioning the eligibility of the persons appointed to the post in question sought to challenge the appointments. The said decision being distinguishable on facts cannot be applied to the case on hand. 36. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court holds that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. Since this Court has already held that the writ petition is not maintainable, it is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case made out by the petitioner. Petitioner is left free to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law if so advised. 37. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)