( 1 ) THE constitution of the Full Bench is a sequel to the doubt entertained as to the correctness of Full Bench decision in S. Sahawala vs. Director of Public Instruction in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagatram. The seminal issue for consideration is whether osmania College, Kurnool is a State within the coverage of Article 12 of the Constitution. In respect of the same college the Division Bench of this Court in Osmania College, Kurnool vs. D. V. Subba Sastry held that the college can be considered as a public body amenable to writ jurisdiction but the Full Bench held that even if the institution is held to be a public body writ cannot be issued in the absence of statutory rules governing the institu- tution. In another writ petition impugning the termination order dated 25-4-1978 learned brother P. A. Choudary, J referred the matter to the Fuller bench as it was considered that a fresh look to the ratiocination by the Full bench is necessitated in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev singh s case (supra ). The Full Bench comprising Madhava Reddy, ramachandra Rao and P. A. Choudary, JJ reiterated the same view and the Fuller Bench is thus seized of the matter to consider the parameters of the State envisaged in Article 12 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE Full Bench of this Court in Sahawala s case (supra) held that the writ is not maintainable against society registered under Hyderabad non-trading Societies Registration Act managing the aided institution notwithstanding the aid received under the Grant-in-aid Code from the Govt. Referring to the earlier Full Bench decision in Harijandar Singh vs. Kakatiya medical College and also the Division Bench decision in Osmania College, kurnool vs. D. V. Subba Sastry (supra) the Full Bench held "that the distinction between the statutory and public bodies is not borne out by any of the Supreme Court decisions". The Supreme Court decisions which prompted the conclusion of the Full Bench are State of Assam vs. Ajit Kumar sarma and Regina vs. St. A. H. E. School wherein the issue in the first case is whether executive instructions for giving grant-in-aid to the educational institutions have statutory force and can be enforced and in the second case the rules for recognition of aided private school can be enforced at the instance of the teacher and in both the decisions the Supreme Court held that the rules governing the grant-in-aid arc executive instructions and have no statutory force and the recognition is a matter between the management and the Government and the teacher has no say in the matter. Relying upon the above decisions and other two Supreme Court decisions Divan, C. J. , voicing the opinion of the Court held as follows :"in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above it is clear that even if the edu ational institutions considered to be a public body, no writ or direction can be issued so long as the private institution is not governed by statutory rules and there is no question of any enforcement of statutory rules. However, as against a Government servant, who is functioning under administrative orders of administrative instructions, a writ can issue if there is violation of principles of natural justice or if the administrative instructions, which are binding on him have not been followed by him. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can always direct a public servant to abide by the rule of law and the administrative instructions binding on him are part of the rule of law. It is only to the limited extent that the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution in matters of this kind. We are constrained to hold, in view of the decisions of the supreme Court referred to above, that even on the basis of the distinction between a statutory body and a public body that a private institution like the 2nd respondent