IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable against bodies not classified as 'State' under Article 12, particularly for private contractual employment terminations.

J UDGMENT

Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.07.2019, whereby the services of the petitioner was relieved w.e.f. 31.07.2019.

3. The facts of the instant case are as follows:-

The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent i.e. the Institute of Chartered Financial Analyst of India University, Mizoram (hereinafter referred to as the “ICFAI University”), applied to the post of teacher. Thereafter the petitioner appeared in the interview held by the ICFAI University and after being selected the ICFAI University by letter dated 17.10.2008 informed the petitioner that he has been selected to the post of Faculty Associate. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter on 29.10.2008 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Faculty Associate on contract basis which was subsequently renewed on 18.05.2009. However, the ICFAI University by order dated 30.07.2019 terminated the employment contract of the petitioner by giving him 3(three) month’s salary (Basic Pay) in lieu of notice period. Aggrieved by the aforesaid termination, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

4. Pertinent that Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at the outset of the hearing raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

5. In view of the aforesaid objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents, this Court before adverting to the merits of the case, deems appropriate to first try the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. Accordingly, arguments were made as regards the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

6. Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ICFAI University being established under Section 4(2) of the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University (Mizoram) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “University Act, 2006”) a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the said University as it is a statutory University and discharging function thereunder. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas and Others , reported in ( 2003) 10 SCC 733 . He further submits that the writ Court is also invested with the power to declare invalid Act of a statutory body, if by doing the Act, the body has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by statute. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others Vs. Lakshmi Narain and Others , reported in (1976) 2 SCC 58

7. Per Contra, Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that ICFAI University is not a “State” or an “instrumentality of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Arun Kumar Vs ICFAI University and others , reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Utt 620 . He further submits that the High Court of Uttarakhand in the aforesaid case has concluded that the ICFAI University though is being a creature of a statute, the same cannot be called a “State” or a “instrumentality of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India as there is no “deep or pervasive control” of the state over this body.

He further in his usual fairness submits