IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the criteria for determining whether an entity falls within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the importance of public functions and state regulations in making such determinations.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"i. To issue appropriate Writ/order in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order contained in letters bearing reference no. E.I.12/2022-23-WEL-EDN-DA2 dated 03.08.2022 issued by the Respondents, whereby the Respondents, in unjust and arbitrary manner, terminates the services of the petitioners;

ii. To issue appropriate Writ order in the nature of the Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to rescind the said letter and to reinstate the services of the Petitioner(s).

iii. Pass order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present case."

2. The relevant facts have been briefly recapitulated below for the disposal of the present petition:

a) The respondent no. 4 (hereinafter `respondent institute') was established in the year 1999, under the umbrella of respondent no.1 (hereinafter `respondent society').

b) The petitioner no.1 was appointed as a Support Faculty (Lab Assistant) vide the appointment order dated 17th August 1999,. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 got promoted to the post of Teaching Faculty after 18 months of joining the respondent institute.

c) The respondent society published an advertisement dated 31st May 2000, thereby, inviting applications for the permanent post of Teaching Faculty. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner no.2 applied for the above mentioned post and the same was confirmed vide office order dated 1st August 2000.

d) Subsequently, the respondent society published another advertisement dated 4th December 2000, for inviting applications for the permanent post of LDC-cum-Typist. The petitioner no.3 applied for the said post and his appointment was confirmed vide offer letter of appointment dated 24th January 2001.

e) The respondent society confirmed the employment of the petitioners upon completion of their probation period of one year.

f) Meanwhile, the petitioners got the benefit from the recommendation of 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission vide the notification dated 21st September 2016.

g) Afterwards, during the then prevailing COVID - 19 pandemic, the respondents held meetings and the same were concluded with the motive inter alia to extract the rehabilitation/re induction plan for the regular employees of the respondent(s). In consequent to the above, the petitioners made representations seeking clarification with regards to the conclusion of the above-mentioned meetings. In response to the same, the respondents issued termination notice to the petitioners.

h) The petitioners made several more representations to quash the said termination notice, however there was no response on behalf of the respondents.

i) Aggrieved by the inaction on behalf of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

3. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent society argued that the present petition is not maintainable on the ground that respondent society is a private body, the employees are purely private/unaided and non-pensionable, therefore, not falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India by placing reliance on case titled Ravi Khokhar v. Union of India and Ors.,2023 SCC OnLine Del 540.

4. It is submitted that the respondent institute receives no aid from the Centre/State Governments for the operation and functioning of the respondent institute and hence, the petitioners cannot be treated as Government Servants.

5. It is submitted that since the respondent institute was running into losses and that there was no improvement in the financial condition of the respondent institute even after a long time therefore the respondent society took the decision to close down the respondent institution, however, keeping in view of the length of the services discharged by the petitioners, the competent authority has decided