IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the criteria for a body to fall within its ambit.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying as follows:

"i. Issue appropriate writ/order in nature of certiorari/mandamus, or any other appropriate writ against the respondent(s) directing the respondents to relocate or adjust the remaining service of the petitioner somewhere else as in similar matter the Hon'ble court of judicature at madras held in W.P.(C) No. 4162 of 2005 dated 11.03.2011;

ii. Issue appropriate Writ order in nature of the Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to protect the rights of the petitioner be relocating or adjust the remaining service of the petitioner before closing the institute, so that he may continue his livelihood.

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 for the disposal of the present petition is reproduced herein:

a) The respondent no. 1 i.e., CRPF Employees Educational Society (hereinafter `respondent society'), was registered under Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 with the aim to provide quality education to the wards of the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter "CRPF") personnel.

b) The petitioner was appointed by the respondent society vide appointment letter dated 24th August 1993 as an instructor.

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

d) During the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondents held meetings which concluded with the motive inter alia to extract the rehabilitation/re-induction plan for the regular employees of the Respondent(s).

e) Upon receiving information about the meetings conducted, individuals similarly placed as the petitioner, made a representation seeking clarification of the meetings held by the respondents and received termination letters shortly after.

f) Vide letter dated 4th July 2022, the respondent society informed the principal of CRPF ITC Wazirabad, to shut down the said institute.

g) Aggrieved by the termination of the similarly situated persons, the petitioner is now in fear of losing his job, hence has 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 petitioner 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, the length of the services discharged by some of their employees, the competent authority has decided to give those employees an opportunity to draw lump sum gratuity amount taking into account their service period upto 58 years i.e. till their superannuation age

6. It is therefore submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the duties discharged by the respondents are not public duties and therefore the respondents do not fall under the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner appearing addressed the issue of maintainability by placing reliance on judgments such as Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava, (2020) 14 SCC 449; Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Ja