JUDGMENT 1. - In all the above three writ petitions almost identical questions of facts and law are involved as such they are disposed of by one single order. 2. The National Institute of Ayurveda (hereinafter referred to as ('NIA') is an institution of Government of India established on February 7, 1976. The management and the affairs of the NIA are controlled by a governing body consisting of representatives and nominees of the Government of India. The President of the Governing Body is Minister of Health, Government of India. The Vice President is Minister of Ayurveda, Government of Rajasthan and most of the governing body are also Government officials. The case of the petitioners thus is that the NIA is 'State' or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the President of the Governing Body of the NIA made the Rules regulating recruitment conditions of services of persons appointed to the service of the NIA called the National Institute of Ayurveda Services Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' which came into force on August 1, 1982. The Director, NIA Jaipur invited applications to fill vacant posts of Laboratory Technicians by direct recruitment. An advertisement Annexure 1 was issued and the last date of reaching the applications was mentioned as December 20, 1982. The petitioners applied well within time for the post of Laboratory Technicians and were invited for interview before the Selection Committee. The petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee duly constituted under Rule 25(1) of the Rules. The Selection Committee found the petitioners suitable for appointment on post of Laboratory Technicians and a merit list was prepared On the recommendations of the Selection Committee the Director of NIA Jaipur appointed the petitioners on the post of Laboratory Technician on probation for a period of two years against the temporary posts in the NIA Jaipur vide order (Annexure 2) dated September 11, 1985 under Rule 36 of the Rule it has been provided that a candidate appointed on probation shall be confirmed at the end of period of his probation, if: (a) he has passed the departmental examination, if any; (b) he has successfully completed the prescribed period of probation and (c) the appointing authority is satisfied that his integrity is unquestionable and that he is otherwise fit for confirmation. 4. 4. The case of the petitioners is that their services were terminated with immediate effect vide Annexure 5 dated January 31, 1986 without assigning any reason. The petitioners in these circumstances have challenged the order of termination as violative of principles of natural justice and also having contravened the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. In reply to show cause notices the respondents have submitted that though it is admitted that the NIA is controlled by the governing body of representatives and nominees of Government of India but it is denied that the NIA is the State instrumentality or the State agency. It has thus been submitted that the NIA is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It has been submitted that at the time of interview and at the time of appointment it was not known to the respondents that the petitioners did not fulfil the requirement of experience which was necessary for appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician by direct recruitment. It has been submitted that according to the qualifications prescribed for the post of Laboratory Technician following experience was necessary: "Two years experience in Laboratory technology in Laboratory of a recognised hospital/institute. It has been submitted that the petitioners submitted false certificate for having acquired the above experience. The petitioners had submitted certain certificates which were considered by the Selection Committee as true and on that account the petitioners were given appointment on probation against the temporary posts in the Institute. It was made clear in the order dated September 11, 1985, that appointment is on temporary, basis until further orders. It was further made clear in the appointment order that if any declaration or information furnished by the candidate is found false, he will be liable to removal from service. After the appointments were given to the petitioners a representation dated October 10, 1985 was received by the respondent through the President, National Institute of Ayurveda Employees Association. In the said representation it was pointed out that the certificate of experience submitted by the petitioners was false and as such the petitioners appointment should be quashed, failing which the Association will knock the doors of the Court. In the said representation it was pointed out that the certificate of experience submitted by the petitioners was false and as such the petitioners appointment should be quashed, failing which the Association will knock the doors of the Court. A copy of this representation was also sent to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and other authorities, the Government of India also sent the representation to the answering respondent for an early action. The employees association had again submitted a reminder dated November 25, 1985 in continuation to their representation dated October 10, 1985. The answering respondent had already appointed a Vigilance Committee vide order dated June 3, 1985 for the inquiry of such complaints and representation dated October 10, 1985, was also referred to the Vigilance Committee for inquiry into the matter. 6. It has been further submitted in the reply that the Vigilance Committee enquired about the genuineness of the certificates of experience submitted by the petitioners and on enquiry it was found that the petitioners had not acquired the experience so as to make them eligible for appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician. After considering the report of the Vigilance Committee it was decided to cancel the appointment of the petitioners as they did not fulfill the qualifications for the post of Laboratory Technician and had secured the appointments on the basis of false certificates. 7. The petitioners then submitted rejoinder to the reply and also affidavit in support of their contentions that the certificates of experience submitted by them were genuine and they had acquired the requisite experience in order to make them eligible for appointment on the posts of Laboratory Technicians. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties at length and have perused the record. 9. On the basis of the averments made by the petitioners and the admissions made by the answering respondent I am satisfied that the NIA is an instrumentality or agency or other authority of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. So far as the merits of the question whether the petitioners had acquired experience, both the parties have placed affidavits and counter affidavits in support of their contentions. 10. So far as the merits of the question whether the petitioners had acquired experience, both the parties have placed affidavits and counter affidavits in support of their contentions. From a perusal of the record and the contentions made before me by learned Counsel for both the parties one thing, which clearly emerges out is that no opportunity of proper hearing was given to the petitioners by the Vigilance Committee or the Director NIA before taking the action of terminating the services of the petitioners. The impugned order Annexure 5 dated January, 31, 1986 also does not make any mention of any ground for terminating the services of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners were given appointment in a regular manner on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with Rule 25(1) of the Rules and it is not the case of the answering respondents that the services of the petitioners were terminated on account of unsatisfactory progress during probation as contemplated under Rule 35 of the Rules. The answering respondents now in reply to the writ petition have clearly come forward with a case that the petitioners had submitted false certificates with regard to their two years experience in Laboratory Technology in a Laboratory of a recognised hospital/ institute. In the facts and circumstances of these cases I am clearly satisfied that there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioners by Annexure 5. In all fairness if any action was considered necessary by the answering respondents on the basis of a representation received by them from the President, Employees Association, a notice ought to have been given to the petitioners and after giving a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing an action could have been taken by the respondents. I am not dealing the controversy on merits, as the above three writ petitions are being allowed simply on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents would thus be free to take any action if they choose to do so by giving an opportunity of explanation and hearing to the petitioners and thereafter take any decision according to law. 11. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, all these three writ petitions are allowed, the order Annexure 5 dated January 31, 1986 is set aside and quashed. 11. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, all these three writ petitions are allowed, the order Annexure 5 dated January 31, 1986 is set aside and quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.Petitions allowed. *******