Educational institutions receiving state assistance fall under the definition of 'State' in Article 12, making them subject to judicial review under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred for quashing and setting aside order dated 04.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5791 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the preliminary objection raised by the appellant-Nirmala College [respondent no. 3 in the writ petition] has been rejected by holding the writ petition to be maintainable.

2. This Court, before entering into the issue on fact, needs to refer herein that the office had pointed out the issue of maintainability of the instant intra-court appeal on the ground that the instant appeal has been filed against order dated 04.10.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5791 of 2022, from perusal of which it transpires that the writ petition is still pending, as such in view order dated05.07.2010 passed in L.P.A. No. 195 of 2010, the instant intra-court is not maintainable.

3. This Court, therefore, first heard the matter of maintainability of the instant intra-court appeal and after having heard learned counsel for the parties had decided the ‘issue of maintainability’ of the instant intra-court appeal vide order dated 19^th December, 2024 and held that the objection raised by the office on the issue of maintainability of the instant appeal is over-ruled.

4. It further needs to refer herein that the writ petitioner-respondent no. 4 herein had filed Caveat being Caveat No. 264 of 2024, which is on record. The caveator-writ petitioner has put his appearance in the instant appeal, as would be evident from order dated 12^th February, 2025. On that date, the direction was passed to supply the copy of memo of appeal to the writ petitioner-respondent no. 4 herein for hearing the matter on merit that is regarding the order maintainability of the writ petition, which is impugned in the instant appeal.

5. Accordingly, the copy of memo of appeal was handed over to writ petitioner, who is being represented by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren.

6. This Court before further delving into the issue needs to refer herein the factual aspect as per the pleading on behalf of the appellants.

Factual Matrix

7. The facts, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, is that the writ petitioner joined Nirmala College in the year 2005 as Lecturer in the Department of History and was confirmed on the post of Lecturer in History with effect from 01.07.2006 and was working as Assistant Professor and Head, Department of History with Respondent-Nirmala College.

8. Further case of the writ petitioner is that there was inordinate delay in release of arrears of her salary due to 6^th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2006 and as such the writ petitioner repeatedly made representation to Respondent-College but her grievances were not addressed by the College and, on the contrary, departmental proceedings vide Memorandum dated 21.10.2022, whereby departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 3-Nirmala College. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging Memorandum dated 21.10.2022, whereby departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner as well as order contained in letter dated 14.11.2022, whereby Respondent-3 Nirmala College declined to supply relevant documents to the writ petitioner.

9. However, during pendency of the writ petition, an order was passed by Respondent No. 3-College imposing punishment of dismissal of service dated 03.03.2023 in the departmental proceedings and even Respondent-Jharkhand Public Service