( 1 ). As the facts and the questions involved in the present cases are similar in nature, I propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ). In both these writ petitions, the issue that was vehemently urged and that crops up for my consideration at this stage is whether the respondent is an agency or instrumentality of the government and is a state within the meaning of article 12 and that whether it is not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

( 3 ). The petitioners were appointed as Typist in the office of the respondent and their services were extended from time to time when finally a notice of termination was issued to them as against which the present writ petitions were filed. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the aforesaid notice of termination. This Court while issuing notice on the writ petitions stayed the operation of the impugned orders which orders are still in operation. The respondent filed a counter affidavit contending and raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the respondent is neither an agency no