The main legal point established in this judgment is that an entity can be considered 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 if it is financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by or under the control of the government.

ORDER

1. After taking note of the substance of submissions made in I.A. D. No. 58539 of 2020 and while ignoring defects therein, the name of deceased petitioner No. 1 is ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties. Cause title be amended accordingly.

Leave granted.

2. In view of a short point involved in the matter, we have heard learned counsel for the parties finally at this stage itself.

3. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.05.2018 insofar as relating to the respective intra-court appeals, whereby the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta has declined to interfere with the conclusion in the judgment and order dated 17.08.2010, as passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the present appellants. The writ petitions came to be dismissed essentially for the reason that in a previous Division Bench decision, the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science ('IACS'-respondent No. 2 herein) was held to be not 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, no writ would be issued against it.

4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking note of fair stand taken on behalf of the respondents by the learned ASG as also after examining the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that these appeals deserve to be allowed and, the respective writ petitions deserve to be restored for consideration on their merits.

5. As the respective writ petitions are proposed to be restored for consideration on merits by the High Court, dilation on all the facts is not necessary. Only a brief reference to the background aspects would suffice.

6. In the batch of writ petitions decided by the impugned order dated 17.08.2010, the writ petitioners, being the academic staff of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, raised various issues with respect to their service conditions. However, on behalf of the contesting respondents, a preliminary objection was raised on the maintainability of writ petitions, essentially on the ground that IACS was not 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence, was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In this regard, reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of that High Court in the case of Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Jadavpur & Ors. v. Ashoke Kumar Roy : (1992) 1 CLJ 319.

7. The learned Single Judge examined the rival contentions and particularly took note of the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the decision in Ashoke Kumar Roy ( supra) holding that IACS was not 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or its agency or instrumentality. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order dated 17.08.2010, though expressed his own opinion otherwise but, being bound by the decision of the Division Bench, found it impermissible to render a contrary decision and hence, proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions.

8. The pertinent observations of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 17.08.2010 could be reproduced for ready reference as under: -

"The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Ashoke Kumar Roy (supra) primarily declined to invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court over IACS on two grounds. It was held that control of the State was not deep and pervasive over IACS as the composition of the Council was dominated by private persons and not by persons appointed or nominated by the Central Government.

Secondly, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that the money required for running the said institute was not provided by the Central Government or the State Government alone, but from various other sources and the Council might or might not have had accepted such grant given by the Government. The Hon'ble Division Bench took notice of the fact that there was no provision that the society