IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8849 of 2009 Md. Jawaid Karim son of Md. Mustufa Karim, resident of village Tenda, P.O. Dargah Bela, P.S. Baligao, District Vaishali…….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary and the Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali. 4. The District Superintendent of Education-cum D.P.C. Vaishali. 5. The District Education Officer, Vaishali. 6. The Block Education Officer, Patepur, District Vaishali 7. The Secretary, Minority Welfare Society, Chitkohara, Gardanibagh, Patna. 8. The Joint Secretary, Vaishali District Sub Committee Faridul Haque Ghulam Rabbani, Minority Welfare Society, Chitkohra, Patna. 9. The Head Mast4r, Government Urdu Middle, School, Tenda. 10. The Organiser-Cum In-Charge of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Tenda of Faridul Haque, Ghulam, Rabbani, Minority Welfare Society……………………………………………………….……Respondents ----------- 4. 29.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of letter dated 18.03.2009 issued by the Secretary, Faridul Haque-Gulam Rabbani, Minority Welfare Society, Chitkohra, Gardanibagh, Patna as contained in Annexure-5 by which petitioner has been suspended from the post of Accountant of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidhyalay, Tenda, P.S. Dargahbela, District 2 Vaishali. Admittedly, such an institution is a minority institution being run by aSociety registered under the Society Registration Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Institution is a financial aided Institution, the management of the Institution is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. For an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, it is essential that the said Institution or Authority falls under the definition of „State‟ as contained in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas Versus Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors. has propounded four indicia of tests for making any Authority or Institution amenable to the writ jurisdiction which are as follows:- “(1) “A finding of the State Financial support plus an unusual degree of control over the management and policies might lead one to characterize an operation as State action.” (2)………. “Another factor which might be considered is whether the operation is an important public function”. (3) “The combination of state aid and the furnishing of an important public service may result in a conclusion that the 3 operation should be classified as a State agency. If a given function is of such public importance and so closely be related to a government functions as to be classified as a government agency, then even the presence or absence of state financial aid might be irrelevant in making a finding of State action. If the function does not fall within such a description then mere addition of State money would not influence the conclusion”. (4) “The ultimate question which is relevant for our purpose is whether such a corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the Government for carrying on a business for the benefit of the public. In other words, the question is, for whose benefit was the corporation carrying on the business?” It is clear that for making any authority or agency or instrumentality amenable to the writ jurisdiction, there must be established State financial control plus an unusual degree of control over the management and policies on the said Institution or it rendering important public service. The present institution though financially aided institution is not under the administrative control of the State over its management or policy decision nor the service being rendered by the petitioner can be termed as important public service. 4 In such a situation, this Court is unable to accept submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ application is not maintainable against the management of the Institution so as to consider the validity of the order passed by the Secretary in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ application is dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to law, as may be available to him. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)