IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3955 of 2003 SANGEETA KUMARI w/I Sri Bishnu Prasad, resident of village- Mhnaul Khurd, P.S. Gaunaha, District- West Champaran. ----Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Through Education Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar cum Chairman State Executive Committee, Bihar Siksha Pariyojna Parishad, Patna Bihar. 2.The Rajya Priyojna Nedeyshak, Bihar Siksha Priyojna Parishad, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna, Bihar. 3. The District Magistrate cum Chairman District Executive Committee, Bihar Siksha Pariyojna Parishad, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The District Programme Co- ordinator, Bihar Siksha Pariyojna Parishad, West Champaran, Bettiah. -----Respondents For the petitioner : Mr.Rajeshkumar Singh and Mrs.Shikha Kumari For Bihar Education Project Council : Mr.Girijesh Kumar. 8 20.1.2011 The petitioner is a contractual employee of Bihar Education Project Council. This council is a society in- corporated under the Society Registration Act. At the time of its in corporation it was headed by the Secretary of Education, Government of Bihar with all bureaucrats being office bearers. Its object is to act in furtherance of governmental policy for encouragement of education and as such other projects which may be assigned to it by the government. At the outset Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that this society is nothing but a corporate of government, in other words corporatization of government and as such would be a State within the meaning of Part III of the Constitution. He fairly concedes that it may not be possible to 2 argue that it would be the State for all purposes of the Constitution. His limited grievance is that all employees of the society may be at State level or district level who are the employees on contractual basis for fixed tenures should be treated as State employees or at par with the State employees. Learned counsel for the State submits to the contrary. Having considered the matter, in my view, though Bihar Education Project Council cannot but be a State for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution because it is governed by the State through its representative. It is for the purposes of furthering policy of the State. It is financed by State fund. Thus it cannot escape from Article 12 of the Constitution. It is no doubt that it is nothing but corporatization of governmental function and nothing different. Thus the petitioner succeeds but so far as next contention that she be treated as State employees and/or at par with the State employees is concerned, the similarity with the State ends. It is not a State for any other purpose other than Part III of the Constitution. It has its own regulation. It has its own memorandum. It has created posts, which are to be filled up on contractual basis. The petitioner had also accepted the contractual appointment but to say that this Court should issue direction to change the contractual employees into permanent employed at par with the government employees treating them to be the government employees is totally a different cup of tea. It has formed its own regulations providing for contractual employment which is not abhorrent to the 3 principles as enshrined in the Constitution. The object of the society would show that it is not contemplated as a permanent body. It takes up some time bound project. It may exist or may not exist. It is not a permanent body like the State and as such cannot have permanent employees like the State. While doing so I must raise a caveat. As is now well established that even in contractual sphere, State is not absolved of the responsibility of Part III of the Constitution. It cannot act as a ordinary citizen but would act, being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. All actions including action in the contract sphere are governed by Article 14 of the Constitution. They have to be just and fair. State cannot use its dominating position to impose unconscionable contractual terms for any particular purpose. Even upon expiry of the contract period if people are required then persons already in employment on contract subject to their suitability and qualification should be preferred rather than throw them on the road and recruit fresh people. That is what fairness demands. The equality with State only goes to this extent and no further. In view of this , the learned Senior counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that that would serve the purpose for this writ petition. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)