A public body or authority performing a public duty or function is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if it is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12.

JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:--This writ petition is filed by two students of the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Science of Sewagram, District Wardha ("Institute") run under the aegis of respondents No. 2, the Kasturba Health Society (Society). Dean of the Institute is respondent No. 1 and Local Managing Committee of the Institute is respondent No. 2. Are these respondent or any of them in the matter of admission of student to various study courses amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the principle point, that arises the petition.

2. Dr. Ajay Gambhir, petitioner No. 1 and Dr. (Mrs.) Mohini Goswami, petitioner No. 2 passed their M.B.B.S. examination from the institute. They completed their intership and so also he two house-jobs. First petitioner did house on in Paediatrics and the other in Medicine and second petitioner one in Gynaecology and Obstetrics and the other in Anaesthesiology. They entered into a Bond as per Annexure VI to the petition, under which they agreed to pay to the society a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on failure to serve the society after post graduation for a period of two years. These two students were intersected in admission to the Post-graduate course and had applied for that purpose. Petitioner No. 1 had given first preference to the subject Medicine, the second to Paediatrics and petitioner No. 2 to Gynaecology an Obstetrics. According to them, they were fully eligible, had nothing adverse against them and were entitled to admission on the basis of merit. They filed the complete application well in time i.e. before 21st January, 1985. On 22nd January, 1985, they saw a notice on the Notice Board indicating that unless they got themselves relieved from the bonds in favour of the society, they would not be considered. Interviews were fixed on 24th January. They were never offered any service by the society and hence there was no question of paying Rs. 25,000/- each to the Society. Suspecting lack of bona fides, they filed a writ petition No. 167 of against the Dean, the society and the Nagpur University. The petition was admitted on 29th January, 1985, Rule was made returnable on 31st January, when by consent of parties, the petition was taken up for hearing. The Dean and the Society stated that the impugned notice dated 22nd January, 1985 is withdrawn and that the petitioners will be considered on merits. On this statement, the petitioner was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 31st January, 1985. Interviews were taken but the petitioner were not granted admission despite the undisputed position that they were having market higher than those who were selected for admission. Respondents No. 4 to 6 in this petition were competitors of petitioner No. 1 and respondents No. 7 to 9 were competitors of petitioner No. 2. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. Respondent No. 8 Dr. Miss Tiwari did not join and hence her name was deleted. The petitioners had field two applications one dated 26th February, 1985 and the other dated 27th February, 1985. By the first application, the petitioners sought permission to add local Managing committee of the Institute as a party respondent and to raise certain additional points. Second application was also for amendment. We allowed those applications. Shri Manohar, the learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and No. 2, took notice also on behalf of the Local Managing committee (L.M.C.) which is joined as respondent No. 12.

3. To the claim of higher merits of the petitioner and their eligibility, there is no defence worth considering. In fairness to Shri Manohar, it will also have to be observed that no attempt to justify the action of refusal of admission on merits was even made. The only defence to the petition was that it is not maintainable against respondent No. 1, 2 or 12 as none of them is either "State" within the meaning of Article 12 or its agency or instrumentality.

4. From the material placed on record

Click Here to Read the rest of this document