JUDGMENT :

Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J.

1. Challenge has been made to the order dated 29.9.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17171 of 2011.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the appellant, in this appeal, is that the appellant is a highly qualified and reputed professor in the stream of Biotechnology employed in United States of America. On being offered a post at KIIT University, he joined as Associate Professor, KIIT School of Biotechnology on terms and conditions as mentioned in the offer of appointment. It is profitable to mention that on 29.5.2010, the appellant was issued with the appointment letter in the pay band of Rs.15,600/-to Rs. 39,100/- with grade pay of Rs.7,000/- and gross salary of Rs. 46,089/-. On 28.7.2010, the appellant joined the post and continued as a probationer as a part of the condition of the service. While continuing as a probationer, the appellant found slow progress in the development activities and further noticed regarding unethical evaluation of the answer papers of the students of the University. In spite of his protest to stop such unhealthy management, there became strain relationship between the appellant and the respondent-University.

3. Be it stated that the appellant could come to know by receiving copies of the documents under the Right to Information Act of the University, instead of going ahead with the strong objection to the unhealthy atmosphere of the University pointed out by the appellant, constituted an Enquiry Committee on 3.6.2011 to conduct an enquiry against the appellant and gave opinion without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant to the effect that his conduct is highly unbecoming of a responsible faculty member of the University. On 20.6.2011, to the utter surprise of the appellant, a letter of termination was issued to him and on 21.6.2011, the appellant submitted a representation protesting his termination as illegal, arbitrary and tainted with mala fide and sheer violation of principles of natural justice. On 23.6.2011, the appellant sought for some documents and information from the University vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Since the authorities did not decide the representation of the appellant, he was compelled to file W.P.(C) No.17171 of 2011, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.9.2014 by quashing the order of termination and consequently he was directed to reinstate with continuity of service from the date of termination and pay only 60% of back wages since the appellant has not worked all those periods.

4. On the other hand, the case of the respondent-University is that the University being a Deemed University having autonomous status and KIIT School of Bio-Technology being an institution, a part of such University, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is the further case of the University that the appellant was on probation being under the service contract. Before completion of the probation period, he was terminated for which no notice was necessary to be served while conducting In-house Enquiry. When the In-house Committee found him guilty, he was issued with the termination order.

5. The respondent-University Grants Commission (UGC) has also placed its case stating that as per Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the KIIT has been recognized as a Deemed University under Section 2(a) of the said Act. It is stated by this respondent that the Central Government may, on advise of the Commission, declare any individual institution for higher education other than University under the UGC Act and for promotion and co-ordination of University, as it thinks fit. In the impugned order, learned Single Judge, after taking the pleadings of both parties into consideration, framed the following three questions for answer:

“(i) Whether the opposite party no.1 University is a “State” and or “Other Authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of I