Point of Law: Matter pertains to the internal affairs of an unaided Non-Government Educational Institution, a writ petition would not be maintainable against the unaided private Institution, as an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B. Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and Mr. S. Bhuyan appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have made a challenge to the letters dated 23.06.2018 issued by the respondent No. 4, by which their services have been terminated. However, before going into the question of the validity of the termination letters, the issue that has to be first decided is as to whether Girijananda Choudhury Institute of Management and Technology, Hatkhowapara (in short “the Institute”) and the Society which runs it, i.e. the Shrimanta Shankar Academy, can be construed to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and even if held otherwise, whether it can be held amenable as an authority under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. In W.P. (C) No. 5671/2018, the petitioner has put to challenge the letter dated 23.06.2018 issued by the respondent No. 4, terminating the service of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Department of Electronics and Telecommunication with immediate effect in terms of Clause 9 of the petitioner’s appointment letter dated 31.08.2012.

4. In W.P. (C) No. 6445/2018, the petitioner has put to challenge the letter dated 23.06.2018 issued by the respondent No. 4, terminating the service of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering with immediate effect in terms of Clause 9 of the petitioner’s appointment letter dated 31.08.2012.

5. The petitioners’ case in brief is that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors in “the Institute” vide appointment letters dated 31.08.2012. The term and condition no. 9 of the appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Professors, as provided in the appointment letters dated 31.08.2012 issued by the respondent no. 4 states as follows:

“9. The service may be terminated by giving one month’s notice without assigning any reason thereof.”

6. While the petitioners were serving as Assistant Professors, the impugned letters dated 23.06.2018 were issued by the respondent No. 4, terminating the petitioners’ service as Assistant Professor, by giving them one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice, purportedly in terms of Clause 9 of the appointment letters dated 31.08.2012.

7. The petitioners’ counsel submits that one month’s notice was not provided to the petitioner, prior to termination of his service by the respondent No. 4 and the giving of one month’s salary is not equivalent to giving of one month’s notice, as the same is not contemplated in terms of Clause 9 of the appointment letter dated 31.08.2012.

8. Mr. I.H. Saikia, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the present writ petitions are maintainable and the respondent No. 6 performs a public function i.e. it imparts education by providing courses in Management and Engineering for class 12 pass students. He accordingly submits that the challenge by way of the writ petitions against the removal of the petitioners, who are faculty members of the respondent No. 6 institution is thus maintainable and in support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Ramesh Malwari vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2012 AIOL 622, Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University, (2015) 13 Scale 622 and Binny Ltd. vs. V. Sadasivans, (2005) 6 SCC 657.

9. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, on the other hand, submits that the giving of one month’s salary tantamounts to giving one month’s notice, prior to termination of the petitioner’s service, in terms of Clause 9 of the appointment letter dated 31.08.2012 and in terms of Rule 9(a) of the Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology, Guwahati Service and Conduct Rules, 2014. He also submits that prior to deciding the above issue, this Court would first hav