JUDGMENT B.N. Saparu, J. - The petitioners Ram Asrey Misra and others were employees of Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar. Their services were terminated. They have therefore filed the present writ petition. 2. When the petition came up for hearing counsel Sri A. K. Sharma appearing for respondents contended that no writ petition was maintainable against the respondent-University because the respondent-University was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and its employees cannot maintain in the writ petition against the order of termination of their services. In support of this contention Sri A. K. Sharma learned counsel for respondents referred to a decision of Single Judge of this Court passed in writ petition No. 7744 of 1972, Raj Gopal Iyer v. Raghubir Singh Shastri. In that case also writ petition had been filed against the order of dismissal passed by the University. The writ petition was held not to be maintainable by Mr. Justice K. N. Singh. A special Appeal was filed against the decision of Mr. Justice K. N. Singh being Special Appeal No. 73 of 1975, Raj Gopal Iyer v. Raghubir Singh Shastri and another. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. In that case counsel for the appellant had contended that the Vishwavidyalaya had been recognised as an University under Universities Grants Commission Act, 1956 and so the writ petition was maintainable. The Bench held that despite the recognition of the Vishwavidyalaya under the Universities Grants Commission Act 1956, the Vishwavidyalaya did not become a statutory body being registered under the Societies Registration Act. It also held that the bye-laws which were alleged to have not been complied with are not statutory provisions and as such for this reason also the writ petition was not maintainable. 3. Sri S. N. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has questioned the correctness of the Division Bench decision of this Court and contended that it requires reconsideration. He referred to a number of decisions in support of his argument. 4. The first case is the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajai Hasia v. Khalil Mujib Sehravardi, in AIR 1981 487. The petitioner in the case before the Supreme Court had challenged the validity of the admissions made by the Regional engineering College, Srinagar for the academic year 1979-80. 4. The first case is the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajai Hasia v. Khalil Mujib Sehravardi, in AIR 1981 487. The petitioner in the case before the Supreme Court had challenged the validity of the admissions made by the Regional engineering College, Srinagar for the academic year 1979-80. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Regional Engineer College, Srinagar was a state or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court in that case held that it was an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution though registered under the Societies Registration Act. Regional Engineering College, Srinagar was registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898. In Paragraph 2 of the judgment the degree of control over the society exercised by the Government is mentioned. It will also be noticed in that paragraph that Clause 7 of the memorandum of Association provided that in case the society or the college is not functioning properly, the State Government would have power to take over the administration and assets of the college with the prior approval of the Central Government. No such provision is to be found in the Memorandum of Association of the Vishwavidyalaya. The case referred to by Sri S. N. Misra is clearly distinguishable. 5. The next decision relied upon in support of his argument by Sri S. N. Misra is B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute and others reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court. page 363. In this case again the question was whether the Indian Statistical Institute, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, was an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Society was governed by the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959. The Court noticed that the control over the Institute vested in the Union of India. It was wholly financed by the Union of India. The Court noticed in Paragraph 2 of its judgment the facts pertaining to the governance of the society and found inter alia that Section 9 of the Act also empowers the Central Government to constitute a committed for reviewing and evaluation the work done by the institute and the progress made by it as also advising Government generally on any matter which in the opinion of the Central Government is of importance in connection with the work of the institute. Section 11 of the Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions to the institute. Section 12 of the Act Authorises the Central Government to assume control over the institute under certain extreme circumstances. It has already been noticed that the Central Government cannot assume control of the Vishwavidyalaya. The only feature in the instant case is that the finances are derived by the Vishwavidyalaya from the Union of India but the degree of control over the society in B. S. Minhas's case is much more extensive than what is exercised in the case of Vishwavidyalaya. This case also is of no assistance to the petitioners. 6. The next case cited by Sri S. N. Misra is the Managing Director, U.P. warehousing Corporation and others v. Vijai Narain Vajpayee reported in AIR 1980 SC 840 . In that case the dismissal of an employee by the Corporation had been challenged. It was held that such a writ petition challenging the order of dismissal was maintainable. In that case it was held that the corporation created by the State had with the advent of welfare State the frame work of a Civil Service Administration had became increasingly insufficient for handling the new tasks which were often of a specialised and highly technical character. For this reason, a policy of public administration though separate Corporations which would operate largely according to business principles and be separately accountable, was evolved. Such Public Corporations constituted under enactments, became a third arm of the Government. The employees of public corporation are not civil servants. In so far as public corporation are not civil servants. In so far as public corporations fulfil public tasks on behalf of Government, they are public authorities and, as such, subject to control by Government. The Court further held that the corporation was constituted under the Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Act, 1956 which was subsequently replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Act 58 of 1962. It was a statutory body wholly controlled and managed by the Government and as such the writ petition was maintainable. The U.P. Warehousing Corporation case does not deal with the case of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Thus this case is also of no help to the petitioners. 7. Ajai Hasia's case was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of liadha Charon Sarnia v. U.P. Coop. The U.P. Warehousing Corporation case does not deal with the case of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Thus this case is also of no help to the petitioners. 7. Ajai Hasia's case was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of liadha Charon Sarnia v. U.P. Coop. Federation and others, 1982, ACJ. 1. After noticing the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ajai Hasia, the Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment observed as follows : - "It is obvious that a juristic personality like a Co-operative Society which is registered under the Act but is otherwise free of governmental control will not be an authority within meaning of Article 12. In the present case, it has been stressed that 40 to 60 per cent of the share-holding of the Federation is owned by the State Government. The President of the Federation is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, a Government servant, and the Secretary of the Federation is the Deputy Registrar, another Government servant. The petitioner was not indicated what is the Constitution of the Federation in which organ or body of the Federation is the power of management and taking decisions resides. It has not been shown how far the Government controls the activities or decision making power of the managing authority of the Federation. In these circumstances, it is difficult to held that the Federation was an authority within meaning of Article 12." 8. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. J. Tewari v. Smt. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir and others, AIR 1981 122.All. In the case before the Supreme Court Smt. J. Tewari had been suspended and she challenged her suspension. The Society which was running the institution was registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Supreme Court observed in that case : "We are unable to accept the contention strenuously advance before us by the appellants learned counsel that respondent No. 1 is public body or a statutory and therefore the appellant would be entitled to obtain a declaration that she continued to be in the service of respondent No. 1 since the order terminating her services has been found to be unlawful. The regulations of the University or the provisions of the Education Code framed by the State Government may be applicable to respondent No. 1 and if the provisions thereof are violated by respondent No. 1, the University may be entitled to disaffiliate the institution and the Government may perhaps be entitled to withdraw the educational grant payable to the institution. That does not, however mean that respondent No. 1 is a public or a statutory body. Respondent No. 1 is a private institution which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860." 9. He submits that even in this case declaration could not be given against the order suspending an employee of a private society. 10. Sri S. N. Misra has referred us to the fact that the Central Government had, on the advise of the University Grants Commission, declared by the notification in the officials Gazette that the respondent No. 1 was University as contemplated by Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. This was done by Notification No. F-10-17/62-U-2, dated 19-6-1962. A declaration under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act makes an institution for higher education "a University" other than those specified in the Act. An institution which has been notified by the Central Government become an university for the purposes of University Grants Commission Act. So the respondent No. 1 is a University only for the purpose of being treated as University within the scope of University Grants Commission Act and for no other purposes. The Constituting governing Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya been produced before us. It shows that the Vishwavidyalaya is entitled to confer honorary degrees or other distinctions with the prior approval of the University Grants commission under Objects 3 (vii) of the constitution. The other regulations which have been referred to by the learned counsel are that the rules provided that the Senate shali inter alia consist of the Vice-Chancellor who shall be the Governor of the State and that there shall be no nominee of the Government of India and the other nominee of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and also 3 educationists to be nominated by the University Grants Commission. The members of the Academic council include the Vice-Chancellor who is the Governor as also amongst others one representative of the Education Department of the Government of India and one representative of the Education Department of Uttar Pradesh. The members of the Academic council include the Vice-Chancellor who is the Governor as also amongst others one representative of the Education Department of the Government of India and one representative of the Education Department of Uttar Pradesh. In the Finance Committee, there is one nominee of the Government of India and one nominee of the Uttar Pradesh Government Accounts of the University have to be audited by the comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any person authorised by him. The result of the audit is to be communicated by the Auditor to the Governing body of the Vishwavidyalaya, which submits of a copy of the Audit report along with its observation to the Ministry of Education, Government of India. The Constitution further provides that the Central Government shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made of the Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, its buildings, laboratories,its examinations, teaching and other work conducted by or done by the Vishwavidyalaya and to cause an enquiry to be made, if considered necessary by the Central Government in respect of any matter connected with the Vishwavidyalaya. It further provides the procedure for inspection as also the enquiry shall be the Central Government after consulting the Vishwavidyalaya. There is participation by the Central Government in same of the managing bodies of the Vishwavidyalaya. There is also power in the Central Government to have an inspection made of the Vishwavidyalaya and its assets and work. However, there is no power in the constitution to control the affairs of the Vishwavidyalaya. Vishwavidyalaya. is not run properly there is no power to take over the management of the Vishwavidyalaya by the Central Government. In the circumstances, we are unable to held that the Vishwavidyalaya is an authority, with in the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 11. Before parting with this case it is necessary to add there that we had not examined Sri S. N. Misra's argument with regard to the violation principle of natural justice. Sri S. N. Misra's contention is that the respondent No. 1 is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution and as such the impugned order is void having been made in violation of principled natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution. Sri S. N. Misra's contention is that the respondent No. 1 is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution and as such the impugned order is void having been made in violation of principled natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution. As we have held that that respondent No. 1 is not an authority or state within the meaning of Article 12 the Constitution, it is needless to refer this aspect of the matter any further. 12. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. 13. Shri S. N. Misra prayed for leave to Supreme Court which is refused.