HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12580 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Praful Vashistha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Nitish Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Present writ petition has been filed against the transfer order issued by the authority of the IDBI Bank Limited. A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the same does not come under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as there is no pervasive control of the Government. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2833 of 2012, All India IDBI Officers Association Vs. Union of India and others, which was decided finally, vide detailed Judgment and order dated 20.9.2022. Thus, submission is that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that since the respondent IDBI Bank Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Praful Vashistha, Ankuri Trivedi, Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Krishna Lal Yadav, Prabhakar Nath Mishra, Yogesh Chandra Bhatt Anushri Trivedi .....Petitioner(s) U.O.I Thru. The Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Finance Services New Delhi And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) discharges public function and therefore, there is pervasive control of the Government itself, thus, the writ petition is maintainable. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner, who has instituted the present writ petition is an employee of IDBI Bank Ltd. and she has challenged the transfer order. The issue has already been settled by the Division of the Bombay High Court in the case of All India IDBI Officers Association (supra). The para 141 thereof reads as under:- "141. IDBI Ltd. as on date the writ petition of the Association was finally heard, lost its character as a Government company. We also find no reason to accept the contention of Mr. Garg that pursuant to acquisition by LICI, by virtue of the deeming fiction under section 139(7) of the Companies Act, 2013, IDBI Ltd. would retain its character as a Government company. On the plain language of sub-section (7), such a construction as urged by Mr. Garg cannot be made. This is apart from the fact that the CAG does not either audit the accounts of IDBI Ltd. nor are its accounts placed before the Parliament." The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Sadana Vs. Union of India and three others, 2022:AHC:184115, has also passed the following order while dealing with the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, with respect to the IDBI Bank:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent. This petition has been filed praying for a mandamus to be issued to the Executive Director, Human Resource (Promoting Authority) to consider the petitioner as having successfully qualified the written/online test conducted by the Bank on 18.04.2021 and thereafter to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant General Manager (Grade C)under the seniority cum merit channel in the promotion process conducted by the respondent Bank for the promotion year 2021-22. This Court vide its order dated 15.09.2022 had noted the objection raised by Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable against the IDBI Bank which is a private entity and no such mandamus can be issued to the private entity. WRIA No. 12580 of 2025 2 When the matter has been listed today, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for time to file rejoinder affidavit. This Court finds no good ground to give time to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit in the matter and keep the writ petition pending which is otherwise not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner was given sufficient time to explain as to how such writ petition is maintainable against the IDBI Bank, he has not been able to satisfy this Court that the Bank owes a statutory duty to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable." This Court has also noticed that the Judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of All India IDBI Officers Association (supra) has been assailed before the Apex Court, which is pending consideration. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Consigned to records. December 9, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 12580 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench