Y.L. Ahuja vs Institute Of Applied Manpower And ...
1995 Latest Caselaw 763 Del

JUDGMENT

J.B. Goel, J.

(1) The Institute of Applied Manpower Research (for short IAMR) Respondent No. I herein is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860.

(2) The petitioner is in service of IAMR since 24-8-1864 when ha had joined as a Research Assistant and at the relevant time i.e. in 1993-94 he wss holding the post of Chief Grade IT.

(3) The petitioner had availed foreign assignments in United Nations Development Programme (for short UNDP) sponsored project in the Republic of Seychelles on four occasions (1) 12-12-1991 to 12-1-1992; (2) 5-4-1992 to 4-6-1992: (3) 1-9-1992 to December, 1992, and (4) from 30-7-1993 to 4-2-1994. His case is that he had proceeded to attend these assignments with the leave and permission of the Institute, Leave for first three assignments was granted but for the further assignment permission/leave was applied and was not refused. After availing this last assignment he had reported for duty on 4-2-1994 but was not allowed to resume work and then vide Memo dated 7-7-1994 his services were terminated w.e.f. 30-7-1993. It is alleged that the termination of his services is illegal, arbitrary', against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

(4) The case of I.A.M.R. is that the petitioner had availed his three assignments with their permission but he proceeded for the fourth assignment without leave or permission and did not join duty inspite of being required vide letters sent to him to so join. And as he failed to do so he has been deemed to have resigned from service as per Rule 44 of the Service and Financial Bye-laws of the Institute applicable to him and termination of his service is valid.

(5) A preliminary objection has been taken that IAMR is only a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is not "Other Authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such the writ petition does not lie against it. This is disputed by the petitioner.

(6) The case is at admission stage. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary issue whether the IAMR is a "State" or "Other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

(7) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Institute is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and so it is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He has relied on the law and principles enunciated and laid down, in the following authorities: 1. Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Mohan Lal & Ors. . Sabhajit Tewary Vs. Uoi, . 3. Sukhdev Singh Vs. Bhagat Ram, . 4. Ramanna Vs.I.A.A.I, . 5. U.P. Warehousing Corporation Vs. Vijay Vani, . 6. Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib, . 7. P. K. Ramchandra Iyer Vs. UOI. . 8. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Brajo Nath. 9. Sheela Barse Vs. Children's Aid Society, . 419 Research & Ors. 10. Tekraj Vs. Uoi, 11. Aisse Asan. Vs. defense Minister-cum-Chairman, Air 1989 Sc 88. 12. Grih Kala Kendra Workers' Union Vs. Uoi . 13. Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. NCERT . and 14. J. P. Unni Krishnan Vs. State of A.P., .

(8) He has also contended that the case of Chander Mohan Khanna. Vs. NCERT where NCERT has been held to be not a 'State' is distinguishable on facts.

(9) Whereas learned Additional Solicitor General has relied on the case of Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. NCERT TLR(2) 1980 Delhi 1012(15) decided by the High Court of Delhi which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in and has 'contended that the facts are similar in this case and so IAMR is not an "Authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, And so writ under Article 226 is not maintainable.

(10) This controversy has arisen in a number of cases and has been considered by Supreme Court of India in a manner of cases. In Electricity Board of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal the facts were that Electricity Board of Rajasthan, a body corporate was constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Before the constitution of this Board the supply of electricity to the State of Rajasthan was being controlled directly by a department of the State Government, named as the Electrical and Mechanical Department. Respondent No. I as well as respondents No. 4 to 14 of that case who were all permanent employees of the State Government held the posts of Foremen in that department. On the constitution of the Board the services of these employees were provisionally placed at the disposal of the Board by a notification issued by the Government on 12-2-1958, As new rules governing their service conditions were not framed, they were held to be governed by the old Rules applicable while in the State Department. The respondent No. 1 remained on deputation to Public Works Department for three years and in the period of three years respondents No. 4 to 14 were promoted as Assistant Engineers. On reversion to the Board respondent No. 1 claimed that he was also entitled to be considered for promotion. This request made to the Board and to the State Government was turned down. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution claiming that he was entitled to equality of treatment with respondents No. 4 to 14 and since he had not been considered for promotion with them the Board had acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution..

(11) After referring to meaning of the word "authority given in Webster's 3rd Edition International Dictionary as "Public Administrative Agency or corporation having quasi governmental powers and authorised to administer a revenue producing public enterprise", and Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of U.P. 1963(1) SCR. 778(18) and K. S. Ramamoorthy Reddiar Vs. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry . his lordship Bhargava, J. who delivered the main judgment had observed as under : "These decisions of the Court support our view that the expression "other authorities" in Article 12 will include all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred or statutory authorities on whom powers of the powers conferred may be for the purpose of carrying on commercial activities. Under the Constitution, the State is itself envisaged as having the right to carry on trade or business as mentioned in. Article 19(1)(g). In part Iv the State has been given the same meaning; as in Article 12 and one of the Directive Principle;; laid down in Art. 46 is that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people. The State, as defined in Art. 12, is thus comprehended to include bodies created for the purpose of promoting the educational and economic interests of the people. The State, as constituted by our Constitution, is further specially empowered under Art. 298 to carry on any trade or business. The circumstance that the Board under the Electricity Supply Act is required to carry on some activities of the nature of trade or commerce does not, therefore, give any indication that the Board must be excluded from the Scope of the word "State" as used in Art. 12. On the other hand, there are provisions in the Electricity Supply Act which clearly show that the powers conferred on the Board include power to give directions, the disobedience of which is punishable as a criminal offence."

(12) And it was held that the expression "Other Authorities" in Article 12 will include all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law and Electricity Board was an athority under Article 12. Research & Ors.

(13) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has laid great stress on the following observations made therein:    "OTHER authorities will include even autonomous authorities which may not be under the control of the Government at all".  

(14) And the observations to the effect. "The State" as defined in Article 12 is thus comprehensive to include bodies created for the purpose of promoting educational and economic interests of the people" appearing in the above extract.  

(15) His Lordship Shah, J. agreeing with the conclusions reached by the majority preferred to adopt a slightly different meaning, to the expression "other authorities" to the effect that authorities, constitutional or statutory invested with power by law not sharing the sovereign power do not fall within the expression "State" as defined in Article 12.  

(16) This authority was followed by the majority in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Bhagat Ram . In this case the question was whether the three Corporations, namely Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). and Industrial Finance Corporation (IFC) which were constituted under the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959. Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956, and Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, respectively, were authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the Rules and Regulations framed by these statutory corporations were having the force of law. On considering the constitution and functions of these bodies it was found that ONGC is owned by the Government. It is a statutory body and not a company. It has exclusive privilege of extracting petroleum. The management is by the Government of India. It could be dissolved only by the Government. Regarding the Life Insurance Corporation of India it was found that it is owned by the Government, Life insurance business is nationalised and vested in the Corporation, no other insurer can carry on life insurance business, tile management is by the Government and it could be dissolved only . by the Government.

(17) About the Industrial Finance Corporation it is noticed that it is under complete management of the Central Government, citizens could not be shareholders, certain specified institutions like Scheduled Banks, Insurance companies, Investment Trusts, and Co-operative Banks may apply for its shares, the Central Government may acquire the shares held by the shareholders other than the Development Bank and after such acquisition, the Government may direct that the entire undertaking of the Corporation shall be vested in the Development Bank and the Corporation could not be dissolved except by the Government. "The Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Industrial Finance Corporation Act conferred powers on the Corporation to make regulations as to method of recruitment of employees and terms and conditions of service of such employees or agents and the ONGC Act, 1959 under section 12 provided that functions and terms and conditions of service of employees should be such as may be provided for in regulations under the Act. The rules and regulations framed by these bodies had the force of law and in these circumstances it was held that these three statutory bodies arc "authorities" falling within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the employees were entitled to claim protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(18) His lordship Mathew J" however, in his separate judgment laid down certain guidelines to be considered In deciding when "Other Authorities" would be a "State". 18-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress to certain observations made in paras 96, 97, 98 and 102 of the judgment at pages 1353-1354 to the effect that :

"96.It may be stated generally that State financial aid does not alone render the institutions receiving such aid a State Agency. Financial aid plus some additional factors might lead to a different conclusion. .... .(para 96) "Another factor which might be considered is whether the operation is an important public function. The combination of State Aid and the furnishing of an important public service may result in a conclusion that the operation should be classified as a State Agency.......... (Para 97)" "The State may aid a private operation in various ways other than by direct financial assistance. It may give the organisation the power of eminent domain, it may grant tax exemptions, or it may give it a monopolistic status for certain purposes. ........(Para 98)"

"Institutions engaged in matters of high public interest or performing public functions are by virtue of the nature of the function performed government agencies. Activities which are too fundamental to the Society are by definition too important not to be considered government function." ..........Para 102.

(19) This question again came for consideration in the case of Ramaana Daya Ram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India . His Lordship Bhagwati J. has followed the law laid down in Rajasthan State Electricity Board case and one additional test propounded by his lordship Mathew J. as under : Research & Ors. "While accepting the test laid down in Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Mohan Lal, and followed by Ray. Chief Justice, in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Bhagat Ram we would for reasons already discussed, prefer to adopt the test of governmental instrumentality or agency as .one more test and perhaps a more satisfactory one for determining whether a statutory corporation, body or other authority falls within the definition of "State". If a statutory corporation, body or other authority is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would be an 'authority' and, therefore, "State" within the meaning of that expression in Article 12".

(20) And after referring to various provisions of the International Airport Authority of India Act., 1971, his Lordship came to the conclusion as under : "It will be seen from these provisions that there are certain features of the 1st respondent which are eloquent and throw considerable light on the true nature of the 1st respondent. In the first place, the Chairman and members of the 1st respondent are all persons nominated by the Central Government and the Central Government has also the power to terminate their appointment as also to remove them in certain specified circumstances. The Central Government is also vested with the power to take away the management of any airport from the 1st respondent of any airport from the 1st respondent and to entrust it to any other person or authority and for certain specified reasons, the Central Government can also supersede the 1st respondent. The Central Government has also power to give directions in writing from time to time on questions of policy and these directions are declared binding on the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has no share capital but the capital needed by it for carrying out its functions is provided wholly by the Central Government. The balance of the net profit made by the 1st respondent after making provision for various charges, such as reserve funds, bad and doubtful debts depreciation in assets etc. does not remain with the 1st respondent and is required to be paid over to the Central Government. The 1st respondent is also required to submit to the Central Government for its approval a statement of the programme of its activities as also the financial estimate and it must follow as a necessary corollary that the 1st respondent can carry out only such activities and incur only such .expenditure as is approved by the Central Government. The audited accounts of the 1st respondent together with the audit report have to be forwarded to the Central Government and they are required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. So far as the functions of the 1st respondent are concerned, the entire department of the Central Government relating to the administration of airports and air navigation services together with its properties and assets, debts, obligations and liabilities, contracts, causes of action and pending litigation is transferred to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is charged with carrying out the same functions which were, until the appointed date, being carried out by the Central Government. The employees and officers of the 1st respondent are also deemed to be public servants and the 1st respondent as well as its members, officers and employees are given immunity for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of the Act or any rule or regulation made under it. The 1st respondent is also given power to frame regulations and to provide that contravention of certain specified Regulations shall entail penal consequences. These provisions clearly show that every test discussed above is satisfied in the case of the 1st respondent and they leave no doubt that the 1st respondent is an instrumentality or agency of the Central Government and falls within the definition of "State" both on the narrow view taken by the majority in Sukhdev Vs. Bhagat Ram , (supra) as also on the broader view of Mathew J" adopted by us."

(21) The Constitution Bench which decided the case of Sukbdev Singh Vs. Bhagat Ram had also decided on the same date Sabhajit Tiwary Vs. Union of India, . In this case the question was whether Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

(22) CSIR is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The broad aspect of its constitution, aims and objects have been noticed in Para 3 of the judgment and in para 4 it has been observed as under: : "4. Extracting the features as aforesaid, it was contended that these would indicate that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was really an agency of the Government. This contention is unsound. The Society does not have a statutory character like the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, or the Life Insurance Corporation or Research & On. Industrial Finance Corporation. It is a society incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The fact that the Prime Minister is the President or that the Government appoints nominees to the Governing Body or that the Government may terminate the membership will not establish anything more than the fact that the Government takes special care that the promotion, guidance and cooperation of scientific and industrial research, the institution and financing of specific researches, establishment or development and assistance to special institutions or departments of the existing institutions for scientific study of problems affecting particular industry in a trade, the utilisation of the result of the researches conducted under the auspices of the Council towards the development of industries in the country are carried out in a responsible manner."

(23) On these facts it was held that the CSIR is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

(24) In Ajay Hasia etc. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar which was a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act came for consideration. "The same test, namely, where a Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution was applied. In this case after copiously and approvingly making reference to the observations made in Ramana Daya Ram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India the following tests have been culled out in Para 9 on page 496: "9. The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government may now be culled out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority's case . These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution-because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression other authorities". It must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority's case as follows : (1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government." (2) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation. It would afford some induction of. the corporation being impregnated with governmental character". (3) "It may also be a relevant factor. . ... .whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected." (4) "Existence of deep and pervasive State Control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State . . agency or instrumentality". (5) "If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government." (6) "Specifically, if a department of Govt. is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government." If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority's case, be an 'authority' and, therefore, 'State' within the meaning of the expression in Article 12." And further in Para 11 it has been observed as under: 11. The corporation may be a statutory corporation crested by a statute or it may be a Government company or a company formed under the Companies Act, 1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other similar statute. Whatever be it genetical origin, it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. Research & Ors. And in Para 15, after referring to the salient features of the Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society it was concluded as under : 15. It is in the light of this discussion that we must now proceed to examine whether the Society in the present case is an "authority" falling within the definition of "State" in Article 12, is it an instrumentality or agency of the Government ? The answer must obviously be ill the affirmative if we have regard to the Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society. The composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government, the monies required for running the college are provided entirely by the Central Government and the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and even if any other monies are to be received by the Society it can be done only with the approval of the State and the Central Governments. The Rules to be made by the Society are also required to have the prior approval of the State and the Central Governments and the accounts of the Society have also to be submitted to both the Governments for their scrutiny and satisfaction. The Society is also to comply with all such directions as may be issued by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government in respect of any matters dealt with in the report of the Reviewing Committee. The control of the State and the Central Governments is indeed so deep and pervasive that no immovable property of the society can be disposed of in any manner without the apporval of both the Governments. The State and the Central Governments have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the Society and any member of the Society other than a member representing the State or Central Governments can be removed from the membership of the Society by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government. The Board of Governors, which is in charge of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Society and of its income and property is also largely controlled by nominees of the State and the Central Governments. It will thus be seen that the State Government and by reason of the provision for approval, the Central Government also, have full control of the working of the Society and it would not be incorrect to say that the Society is merely a projection of the State and the Central Governments and to use the words of Ray, CJ.in Sukhdev Singh's case (Supra) the voice is that of the State and the Central Governments and hands are also of the State and the Central Government. We must, therefore, hold that the Society is an instrumentality or the agency of the State and the Central Governments and is an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12." And it was held that the Society is an instrumentality or the agency of the State and the Central Government and it is an authority within the meaning of Article 12.

(25) In Sheela Barse Vs. Secretary, Children's Aid Society and others . in a public interest writ petition the grievance was about the working of an Observation Home which is maintained and managed by the Children's Aid Society, Bombay, Besides, the Society also runs three other Observation homes in that State. It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 1-5-1926 and has also been treated as a Public Trust under The Bombay Public Trusts Act of 1950. The Chief Minister of Maharashtra State is its ex-officio President and the Minister of Social Welfare is the Vice President of the Governing Council of the Society. The Society receive grants from the State. In this writ petition the condition of its working and the neglect of the children lodged therein was brought to the notice of the Bombay High Court by a Letter by the petitioner which was treated as " writ petition. The High Court made recommendations for its smooth and proper working. The matter was also taken up by the petitioner to the Supreme Court in Criminal appeal and after taking notice of the circumstances and its objects of highly public importance, it was emphasised that its working needs to be regulated and carried properly and in that context it was observed that "We agree. ..... that the respondent Society should have been treated as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as it is undoubtedly an instrumentality of the State on the basis of the test laid down by this Court". 25.A. In this case the Society only a Public Trust, it gets grants from the State. Its functions are of great public importance and closely related to governmental functions in a welfare State. This is also run under the care and control of the Chief Minister and a Minister concerned and in that context it was held that it was an instrumentality of the Slate. Obviously, this would be covered by the above tests laid down in Ajay Hasia's case.

(26) In P. K. Ramachander Iyer Vs. Uoi and others the "authority" under consideration was Indian Council Research & Ors. of Agricultural Research (for Short ICAR) and its affiliate Indian Veterinary Research Institute (For short JVRI).

(27) "ICAR came into existence as a department of the Government and continued to be an attacked office of the Government. It was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and wholly financed by the Government, and the taxation power of the State was invoked to make it financially viable and to it Indian Research institutes set up by the Government were transferred. Following the tests laid down in earlier cases inter alia of Ajay Hasia's case and Ramanna R. D. Shetty Vs. Iaai it was held that being almost inseparable adjunct of the Government of India having an outward form of being a Society it could be styled as a Society set up by the 'State" and, therefore, would be an instrumentality of the State. The case of Sabhajit Tewary in which Csjr was held to be not an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution was distinguished on facts as the features noticed in this case were not present in the case of CSIR.

(28) Again in Tekraj Vasandi Vs. Uoi which pertains to Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies (For short ICPS) and in Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. The National Council of Educational Research and Training and others , the National Council of Educational Research and Training (for short NCERT) registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 were held to be not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution after taking into consideration their constitution and aims and objects which did not fulfill the requirements of State under Article 12 of the tests laid down in the case noticed earlier.

(29) In Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. National Council for Educational Research and Training after referring to the earlier case law and after referring to the objects of the test that one of the sources of the funds of the Society was Governmental grant. Its functions were not wholly related to the Governments functions and is largely an Autonomous Body. This, Court's judgment under appeal was upheld and it was held that NCERT was not the instrumentality of the Government under Article 12 of the Constitution. Other cases relied upon have also followed the principles and tests already noticed.

(30) Now coming to the present case IAMR is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The object of the Institute as per its Memorandum of Association are as under:- "2(i) to advance knowledge about the nature, characteristics, and utilisation of human resources in India; (ii) to provide a broad perspective of requirements of trained manpower for economic development in different fields with due regard to the probable impact of technological changes on the pattern of employment. (Hi) to develop improved methods and techniques for dealing with- (a) training and development of the existing world force; (b) educational preparation for employment; (c) vocational guidance; (d) identifying and developing highly talented persons; (e) forecasting demand and supply of manpower and concerned matters. (iv) to provide manpower research services to Government departments, public corporations and private establishments. (v) to establish and maintain centres for research into manpower problems; (vi) to undertake, organise, and facilitate study courses, conferences, lectures, seminars and the like to promote the aforesaid objects ; (vii) to undertake and provide for publications of journals and research papers and books and to establish and maintain libraries in the furtherance of the aforesaid objects; (viii) to subscribe to, or become a member of or to co-operate or amalgamate with any other association or society whose objects are similar; (ix) to stimulate interest in manpower problems generally, and to co-operate with and assist manpower research by other agencies and institutions or professional associations; (x) to co-operate with international agencies engaged in manpower research and arrange for inter-change of personnel, materials and data; (xi) to provide advanced training in professional techniques for manpower planning and administration."

(31) As its activities it can also undertake and accept the management of any endowment or Trust Fund or donation to further its Research & Ors. 31-A. The Institute may acquire, hold and purchase both move- able and immovable property and to enter into agreement with any Government, other authorities; Municipal, Revenue or otherwise to obtain from such authority rights, concessions etc. as may be deemed desirable,

(32) It raises funds by issuing appeals for money and from gifts, donations, subscriptions or otherwise. It obviously includes fees changed from training programmes and from consistency/advice services rendered by it and also by Government grants. As mentioned in affidavit dated 29th June, 1995 by its Director that apart from the grants-in-aid received from the Planning Commission, the Society also generates its own income from training activities, sponsored studies, consultancy studies and the National Technical Information System.

(33) The Society is free to apply its income and property towards the activities of the Institute in its own way except to the extent that Government control may be only to the extent that Government grants are properly utilised subject to the limitation as may be imposed by it.

(34) The object of the Institute is to impart advance knowledge about the nature, characteristics and utilisation of human resources, to make research and render advice about the requirements of trained manpower for developments in various fields in the changing economic and technological fields, make research in methods and techniques tcr advance training and utilisation of manpower for the developing society. For that purpose it undertakes and organises study courses, conferences, seminars, and also undertakes publication of journals and other research material and books etc. Obviously its functions are primarily of consultancy and its services are available to Government departments as well as to public and private organizations/agencies equally for consideration.

(35) The Governing body of the Institute comprises of Government Employees from various ministries as well as representatives of various organisations autonomous public and private establishments. The affairs of the institute are managed by an Executive Committee comprising of Government servants as well as representatives of public and private organisations. The Institute is not shown to have its origin from any Government Department. It is an autonomous body which is admitted by both the parties in their respective pleadings. Its objects are not wholly related to Government functions or obligatory functions of Government. Its position and status is similar to that of National Council for Education Research and Training.

(36) We are, accordingly, of the opinion that Institute of Applied Manpower Research is not an instrumentality or agency of the Government falling under Article 12 of the Constitution, the preliminary objection is accordingly upheld and we accordingly dismiss this writ petition as not maintainable, in view of this order it is not necessary to go into the merits of the controversy raised in the petition. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.