JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Madan Prasad, learned C.G.C. for the respondent Union of India and Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Xavier Institute of Social Services (XISS).

2. This matter was taken up on 05.08.2019 on that date Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner raised the preliminary issues as the writ petition is not maintainable as XISS is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The matter was adjourned for 29.08.2019 to argue the matter on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. But, on 29.08.2019 none appears for the respondent no. 2 and it was recorded that if the respondent will not argue the matter on the next date, the matter will be heard on merit.

3. Today, Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. However, in spite of the earlier times granted by this Court no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. In view of the order dated 29.08.2019, the learned counsel appearing for the parties were called upon to address this Court on merit.

4. On maintainability, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the All India Council for the Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.) was established in the year 1945 as a national level Apex Advisory Body to conduct a survey on the facilities available for technical education and to promote Development in the Country in a coordinated and integrated manner. It covers technical education including training and research in engineering and technology and management etc. further, he submits that under AICTE Act 1987, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Chairman for the first five years. In the year 1993, the first full time chairman was appointed. He referred to prospectus of the Post Graduate course for the year 2007-2009 and submits that many courses were approved by the AICTE meaning thereby it comes under the jurisdiction of Human Resources Development, Government of India. He further submits that the respondent no. 2 has framed Personnel Rules of 1997 for service conditions of petitioner employed in the year 1977. The said rule annexed as Annexure-10 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. He refers the prospectus wherein it is prescribed that that 2 years Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Development is approved by AICTE. By referring to clause-IV of direct appointment he submits that pay scales are fixed in terms of the recommendation of the AICTE and UGC and on this extent relying on these documents he submits that XISS is discharging a public duty and accordingly, the writ is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon a recent decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs. Asha Srivastava & Ors. Reported in passed in Civil Appeal No. 9166 of 2013 disposed of vide order dated 14th February, 2019 and submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court this writ petition is maintainable. He referred paragraph nos. 15 & 16 of the said judgment which is quoted herein below:

"15. Writ application was clearly maintainable in view of aforesaid discussion and more so in view of the decision of this Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) in which this court has considered the issue at length and has thus observed:

"13. in the aforesaid case, this Court was also considering a situation where the services of a Lecturer had been terminated who was working in the college run by the Andi Mukti Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust. In those circumstances, this Court has clearly observed as under: (V.R. Rudani case, SCC PP. 700-701, paras 20 & 22)

"20. The term 'authority' used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12.