By the Court.—This appeal is essentially on behalf of the management of Air Force School, Bamrauli, district Allahabad, questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13.1.2010, whereby the institution in which the respondent - petitioner is working as a teacher, has been held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and further the petition has been allowed quashing the orders dated 28.6.2007, 9.8.2007 and 22.8.2008. These orders were challenged by an amendment during the pendency of the writ petition. The appointment of the respondent - petitioner from regular to contractual and consequential payments of salary was the subject matter of the writ petition.

2. The appellants herein raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that neither the institution nor the Society managing the institution was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court as it was not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This preliminary objection was taken setting out the averments in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit filed before the learned single Judge. This reply was in response to the averments contained in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the writ petition, where it was alleged that the Air Force School established under a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and governed by the education code of the Air Force School falls within the meaning of word State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The reply to the averments contained in the counter-affidavit including the preliminary objection were replied by the respondent - petitioner by filing a rejoinder-affidavit and no further facts were either pleaded or brought on record in the said Affidavit in rebuttal to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants.

3. The learned single Judge over ruled the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition by relying on the decision in the case of Anoop Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and others, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 186 and the decision in the case of Sanjai Kumar Sharma v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, 2006 (7) ADJ 322 (DB). The learned single Judge also referred to the decisions, which were relied upon by the appellants in the case of Army School, Gorakhpur v. Smt. Shilpi Paul, 2005 (1) ESC 342, Girish Kumar Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools, 1999 (1) ESC 47, and Dr. A.K. Gupta v. Rajghat Education Centre, (2003) 2 UPLBEC 336. He however did not find these decisions applicable as they were distinguishable on facts.

4. The learned single Judge thereafter also entered into the merits of the matter and allowed the writ petition.

5. We have heard Sri Ajay Bhanot for the appellants and Sri M.K. Tiwari for the sole respondent - petitioner.

6. Sri Bhanot, advancing his submissions, urged that the institution where the respondent-petitioner is employed is run under a registered Society which operates under it’s own by-laws framed under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The apex body of the Society is stationed at New Delhi and institutions have been established for the education and welfare of the wards of the Air Force personnel through-out the country. The institution presently in question is within the Central Air Command Bamrauli Allahabad and according to the bye-laws, the Officers by virtue of their rank and position in the Air Force are ex-officio members of the governing body. It is submitted that they are not functioning in any official capacity and are simply part of the managing body of the institution. He submits that there is no Governmental control at all and no funds are received from the Government by the Society for running and management of the institution. The Society has its own fund and finances that are received either through welfare funds voluntarily contributed by the Officers or through the