IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis in determining the applicability of legal provisions, such as the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Pranav Trivedi, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant – original petitioner assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 05.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7232 of 2023.

2. The prayers made by the appellant - original petitioner in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was to pass direction / Writ of Quo-Warranto to quash and set aside the appointment order issued by the respondent No.2 – Institution, appointing respondent No.4 as the Professor as well as the Director of the Institution.

3. The learned Single Judge after considering the arguments of both the parties came to a conclusion that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the respondent – Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute (hereinafter referred as “the respondent”) was not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The present appeal is preferred assailing the said order.

4. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was a Social Activist as well as R.T.I Activist – Whistle Blower residing at Ahmedabad. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent had issued advertisement in the local Newspaper, namely, The Times of India for the post of the Director. It was stipulated in the advertisement that a candidate should be Oncology Specialist with a Post Graduate Degree or a Higher Qualification and a minimum work experience of 15-20 years in a reputed Cancer Institute in India or abroad. It was the case of the petitioner that the educational qualifications, experience etc. stipulated in the advertisement were not at par with the educational qualifications and experience prescribed by the Gujarat University as well as the Medical Council of India.

4.1. It was the case of the petitioner that respondent is attached with B. J. Medical College for Post Graduate and Super Specialty Medical Courses and is affiliated to the Gujarat University. As per norms of the Gujarat University, any appointment of teaching faculty or Principal i.e. Head of the Institute in recognized teaching institute is to be done by the procedure prescribed under Ordinance 97. Therefore, appointment was in violation of Section 14 of the Gujarat University Tribunal Act as well as with regards to Ordinance 97. Such appointment had to be null and void was the grievance raised by the petitioner. It was also the case of the petitioner that Dr. Sashank Pandya was appointed as Director, had submitted that he has never applied for the position of the Director of respondent. Raising such grievance, the petitioner had preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

4.2. Opposing the writ petition, the respondent had taken a stand that the petition itself was not maintainable as the respondent would not fall within the purview of State as defined Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, writ petition against the respondent would not be maintainable. Learned Single Judge after considering arguments, canvassed by both the sides, came to a conclusion that the writ petition was not maintainable. This order has adjudged the original petition which has culminated into assailing the correctness of the order the present appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.

6. Before starting arguments of both the sides, a preliminary objection was taken by Mr. S. I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents that the writ petition itself was not maintainable and therefore, the appeal would not be maintainable, as the respondent is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

7. In response to such preliminary objection, Mr. D. G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the appellan