IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 6088 of 2001 (S/S) Kedar Nath S/o Sri Bal Makund Singh ..……… Petitioner Versus Mukhya Adhisthata, Gurkul Maha Vidyalaya, Jwalapur, Haridwar and others ……… Respondents Mrs. Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mrs. Indu Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Gurukul Mahavidyalaya Jwalapur, District Haridwar on 25th January, 1986 in the pay scale of Rs.110-230 and was working since then. The petitioner’s services was abruptly terminated by an order dated 28/05/1990. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition in which an interim order was passed staying the effect and operation of the impugned order. In paragraph 18 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has contended that inspite of the interim order, the petitioner was not allowed to join. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided by the respondents before terminating the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner was employed in a permanent capacity and, therefore, no action could be taken by the respondents without complying with the provision of natural justice which had not been adhered by the respondents. 2 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable since the respondents is not a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite parties-institution, is being managed by a society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is not a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on an adhoc / contract basis on a fixed pay and that his services being contractual was dispensed with as the services of the petitioner was no longer required. With regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, the petitioner in paragraph 1 of the writ petition has stated that Gurukul Mahavidyalaya Jwalaur, Haridwar is an educational institution which is recognized and affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi. This fact is admitted by the respondents in paragraph 6 of their counter affidavit as well as in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner contents that the respondents, institution, is an aided institution and receives grant in-aid from the State Government and that the salary of the employees and of the teachers of the Institution is paid from the grant in-aid received by the institution from the State Government. Paragraph 2 of the writ petition is admitted by the respondents in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. However, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the respondents during the course of the hearing of the petition and in paragraph 3 thereof, the respondents have stated that the institution does not receive any grant in-aid from the State Govt. In paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit, the respondents admits that the degree section of the institution receives grant in- aid but the primary wing of the institution does not receive any grant. In paragraph 5, the respondents have contended that the 3 petitioner was appointed in the primary wing of the institution and that the salary of the junior section of the institution is being paid from private resources. Necessary proof of the averments made in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the supplementary affidavit has not been placed on record. The Court finds that now contrary stands has been taken by the respondents. The appointment letter does not indicate that the petitioner was appointed in the primary wing. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to agree with the new plea raised by the respondents in their supplementary affidavit. Admittedly, the respondents is an educational institution and is affiliated with the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varansi. It is performing a public duty and, consequently, on that limited ground the writ petition is maintainable. Further, the Court finds that the respondents admits that this institution receives aid from the State Government and salary of its staff and teacher are being paid from the aid provided by the State Government. A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Aley Ahmad Abidi Vs. Dist. Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others, 1977 ALL.L.J. 951 has held that the Committee of Management of an Intermediate College is not a statutory body but a writ petition filed against the committee of management is maintainable if such petition is for enforcement of performance of any legal obligations or duties imposed on such committee by a statute. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition against the committee of management for enforcement of any legal obligation is maintainable. A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramswarup Gupta Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, AIR 1976 Madhya Pradesh 152 has held that the High Court could issue an appropriate writ, direction or order against a Co-operative Society 4 or its officer, who has, in violation of the Act or rules or bye-laws, dismissed its employee or terminated his services and that writ of reinstatement with or without backwages would be maintainable. In the present case, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the enforcement of the legal obligations which is cast upon the respondents. It is settled law that the services of an employee cannot be terminated unless the principles of natural justice is followed. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 and had worked for four years before his services was terminated. The appointment letter does not indicate that the petitioner was appointed on a fixed term or on a contract basis. On the other hand, it indicates that the petitioner was appointed on a substantive post. Consequently, the impugned order of termination could not have been passed without issuing a notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. Since the principles of natural justice was not complied with, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. A prayer has been made for payment of backwages since an interim order was passed staying the termination order. It has further been stated that inspite of the stay order, the petitioner was not reinstated. In the light of the circumstances that has been brought on record, since the petitioner has not worked during this period, he is not entitled for any backwages. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 17.04.2010 Shiv