JUDGMENT 1. 1. Although the facts mentioned in the four writ petitions regarding the merits of the claims made by the petitioners are not similar but a common preliminary objection has been raised by the Respondents about the maintainability of the Writ Petition in all the four cases. The objection of the Respondents is that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Society do not fall within the scope of the term "State" as used under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, writ petitions filed by the petitioners for enforcement of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution are not maintainable. Since this preliminary objection is common to all these writ petitions, the same is being disposed of by a common order. 2. Briefly stated the facts of Writ Petition No. 2778/91 are that the petitioner who is a member of S.T., applied for appointment as L.D.C. at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya District Tonk, in pursuance of advertisement issued by the Principal of the School on 15.7.90 (Annexure-1). The petitioner was called for selection along with other eligible persons. His assertion is that he has been selected by the Selection Committee and his name has been placed at serial No. 2 in the panel of the selected persons. Shri Raja Ram Meena, whose name was at No.1 of the panel was appointed but he did not join and, therefore, by an order dated 8.1.91 the petitioner was given appointment as LDC in the pay scale of 950-1500. In the order of appointment the nature of appointment has been described as adhoc and the term of appointment was fixed upto 30.4.91, even though the appointment was prescribed by Selection made by a duly constituted selection committee against the post reserved for members of the ST. The petitioner joined service on 14.1.91, when he was assured that his appointment will be continued and will be regularised. However, his service has been brought to an end with the expiry of the term on 30.4.91. The case of the petitioner is that the action of the Respondents in giving him appointment on adhoc basis and for limited term despite his selection by Selection Committee, is arbitrary, unfair, irrational and unconstitutional. He has been forced to accept unconscionable terms of contract of service. The case of the petitioner is that the action of the Respondents in giving him appointment on adhoc basis and for limited term despite his selection by Selection Committee, is arbitrary, unfair, irrational and unconstitutional. He has been forced to accept unconscionable terms of contract of service. The action of the Respondents in incorporating these arbitrary, conditions in the appointment order is opposed to public policy. 3. While contesting the writ petition on merits the Respondents have in their reply asserted that the Respondent Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is only a Society registered under the Society Act, 1960. It is not a statutory body created under a statute. It is neither "State" nor any other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. In writ Petition No. 6540/91 the petitioner has stated that he is a member of Scheduled Caste. He was appointed as Laboratory Attendant by order dated 30.6.90 issued by the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Nasirabad. Earlier to this, he had been working as an employee of Group 'D' from 2.8.82. The Principal of the School wrote to the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan, Jaipur Region to confirm the appointment of the petitioner as Laboratory Attendant. However, apparently this was not done and, therefore, by order dated 14.11.91 of the Principal of the School, he has been reverted to Group 'D' post. The petitioner has challenged this action of the Respondents on the ground that the same has been taken in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is also arbitrary. 5. The Respondents have contested this writ petition by asserting that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The education code for Kendriya Vidyalaya is not a statutory instrument and so-called violation of the provisions contained in the code do not give any cause of action for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In Writ Petition No. 6541/91 the petitioner has challenged order dated 14.11.91 passed by the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalya Nasirabad whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Lower Division Clerk to that of Laboratory Attendant. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Group 'D' employee by the Principal of the School on 15.9.78. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Group 'D' employee by the Principal of the School on 15.9.78. He was promoted as Laboratory Attendant. On the recommendation of the Management Appointment Committee he was appointed as L.D.C. with effect from 3.5.90. This appointment was preceded by a regular selection. The Principal of the School sought confirmation of this appointment of the petitioner as L.D.C. Apparently the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jaipur Region has not agreed with the proposal of the Principal and, therefore, he has been reverted to the post of Laboratory Attendant. Grounds set out in this writ petition are similar to those set out in Writ Petition No. 6540/91. 7. The reply filed by the Respondent is also on the same lines on which the Reply has been filed in Writ Petition No. 6540/91. I, therefore, do not consider it necessary to give detailed reference of the reply submitted by the Respondents. 8. In wait Petition No. 6542/91, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed as Group 'D' employee by order dated 27.6.90 issued by the Principal of the School. He joined on 2.7.90. The term of his appointment has been extended till further orders by communication dated 20.9.90. Apparently the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jaipur Region has not approved the appointment of the petitioner as Group 'D' employee. Therefore, the Principal of the School has issued order dated 14.11.91 terminating the service of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the action of the Respondents in terminating his service is in clear violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. 9. In their reply the Respondents have raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. 10. Shri R.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the Respondents, has made a reference to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational Research and Training & Ors., JT 1991 (4) SC 233, and argued that the case of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are at par with that of The National Council for Educational Research and Training. He invited my attention to the various provisions contained in memorandum of Association and articles of Association of N.C.E.R.T. as also in memorandum of Association of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Rules of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and the education code for Kendriya Vidyalayas and argued that the provisions contained in these memorandum of Association, etc. are identical. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as well as Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan have come into existence as registered societies. The management of these institutions is done through the Board of Governors and various committees. The Govt. (Central or the State) do not exercise deep and pervasive control over the working of these institutions and the mere fact that some finances are provided or that the Govt. can issue certain directions in a given situation cannot lead to an inference that these bodies are agencies or instrumentalities of the Government. Therefore, neither of these institutions can be treated as authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand argued that both these societies have been established with the object to provide establishment, endow, maintain control and manage schools which are called Navodaya Vidyalaya or Kendriya Vidyalaya. Kendriya Vidyalayas are schools established for the children of transferable employees of Govt. of India, floating population and others. Both these bodies are under the direct control of the Ministry of Human Resources and Development. The Govt. provides vast funds for running of these institutions. The governing bodies are packed with the representatives of the Govt. and officials of various Ministries and Govt. bodies. These institutions are engaged in achieving the directive principles of State Policy as embodied in Article 41 of the Constitution. The Govt. of India exercises extensive control over the working of these institutions. Therefore, these institutions must be treated as the instrumentalities of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. 12. Before I make a detailed reference to the Constitution, the objects etc. of these two types of bodies, it will be profitable to refer to the principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court for holding a particular body or authority to be an agency or instrumentality of the State as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution. 13. of these two types of bodies, it will be profitable to refer to the principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court for holding a particular body or authority to be an agency or instrumentality of the State as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution. 13. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 S.C. 1857 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the scope of the expression 'other authorities' as used in Article 12 of the Constitution in the context of R.S.E.B. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had in Mohan Lal v. R.S.E.B., AIR 1966(Raj.)1 , ruled that the RSEB comes within the ambit of the expression 'other authorities.' On appeal, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to various decisions of different High Courts and then observed : "The dictionary meaning of the word "authority" is a public administrative agency or corporation having quasi-governmental powers and authorised to administrate a revenue-producing public enterprise. This dictionary meaning of the work "authority" is clearly wide enough to include all bodies created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions. The expression "other authorities" is wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute and functioning within the territory of India, or under the control of the Govt. of India and we do not see any reason to narrow down this meaning in the context in which the words "other authorities" are used in Article 12 of the Constitution. The expression "other authorities" in Article 12 will thus include all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law. It is not at all material that some of the powers conferred on the authority may be for the purpose of carrying on commercial activities for under the Constitution, the State is itself envisaged as having the right to carry on trade or business as mentioned in Article 190)(g). In Part IV, the word, 'State' has been given the same meaning as in Article 12 and one of Directive Principles laid down in Article 46 is that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people. In Part IV, the word, 'State' has been given the same meaning as in Article 12 and one of Directive Principles laid down in Article 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 Article 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 specifically empowered under Article 298 to carry on any trade or business. The circumstances 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 Article 12." 14. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Rama, AIR 1975 S.C. 1331 , held that bodies like Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Life Insurance Corporation and Industrial Finance Corporation are authorities within Article 12 of the Constitution. In his concurring K. K. Mathew, J., made some observations which need detailed reference. He proceeded to observe as under : "80. The concept of state has undergone drastic changes in recent years. Today state cannot be conceived of simply as a coercive machinery wielding the thunderbolt of authority. It has to be viewed mainly as a service corporation. "If we clearly grasp the character of the state as a social agent, understanding it rationally as a form of service and not mystically as an ultimate power, we shall differ only in respect of the limits of its ability to render service" (see Mac Iver,'The Modern State", 188). 81. To some people state is essentially a class structure, 'an organizarion of one class dominating over the other classes; others regard it as an organisation that transcends all classes and stands for the whole community. They regard it as a power system. Some view it entirely as a legal structure either in the old Austinian sense which made it a relationship of governors and governed or in the language of modern jurisprudence as a community 'organised for action under legal rules.' Some regard it as no more than a mutual insurance society, others as the very texture of all our life. Some view it entirely as a legal structure either in the old Austinian sense which made it a relationship of governors and governed or in the language of modern jurisprudence as a community 'organised for action under legal rules.' Some regard it as no more than a mutual insurance society, others as the very texture of all our life. Some class the state as a great 'corporation' and others consider it as indistinguishable from society itself. 82. Part IV of the Constitution gives a picture of the service which the state is expected to undertake and render for the welfare of the people. Article 298 provides that the executive power of the Union and State extends to the carrying on of any business or trade. As I said, the question for consideration is whether a public corpn. set up under a special statute to carry on a business or service which Parliament thinks necessary to be carried on in the interest of the nation is an agency or instrumentality of the State and would be subject to the limitation expression Article 13(2) of the Constitution. A State is an abstract entity. It can only act through the instrumentality or agency of natural or juridical persons. Therefore, there is nothing strange in the notion of the state acting through a corporation and making it an agency or instrumentality of the State. 85. The tasks of Government multiplied with the advent of the welfare state and consequently, the framework of civil service administration became increasingly insufficient for handling the new tasks which were often of a specialised and highly technical character. At the same time 'bureaucracy' came under a cloud. The distrust of Government by civil service, justified or not, was a powerful factor in the development of a policy of public administration through separate corporations which would operate largely according to business principles and be separately accountable. 90. The Constitution was framed on the theory that limitation should exist on the exercise of power by the State. The assumption was that the State alone was competent to wield power. But the essential problem of liberty and equality is one of freedom from arbitrary restriction and discrimination whenever and however imposed. The Constitution, therefore, should, wherever possible, be so construed as to apply to arbitrary application of power against individuals by centres of power. The assumption was that the State alone was competent to wield power. But the essential problem of liberty and equality is one of freedom from arbitrary restriction and discrimination whenever and however imposed. The Constitution, therefore, should, wherever possible, be so construed as to apply to arbitrary application of power against individuals by centres of power. The emerging principle appears to be that a public corporation being creation of the State is subject to the constitutional limitation as the State itself. The preconditions of this are two, namely, that the corporation is created by State, and the existence of power in the corporation to invade the constitutional right of individual. 96. Does any amount of state help, however inconsequential, make an act something more than an individual act ? Suppose, a privately owned and managed operation receives direct financial aid from the State, is an act of such an agency an act of State ? It would be difficult to give a categorical answer to this question. Any operation or purpose of value to the public may be encouraged by appropriation of public money and the resulting publicly supported operation can be charaterized as a state operation. But such a rule would seem to go to the extreme. There seems to be no formula which would provide the correct division of cases of this type into neat categories of State action and private action. Some clue however to the considerations which might impel the court in one direction or the other may be obtained from an examination of the cases in this area. The decisions of the State courts in U.S.A. seem to establish that private agency, if supported by public money for its operation would be 'state'. But in all these cases, it has been found that there was an element of control exercised by the State. Therefore, it may be stated generally that State financial aid alone does not render the institution receiving such aid a state agency. Financial aid plus some additional factor might lead to a different conclusion. A mere finding of state control also is not determinative of the question, since a state has considerable measure of control under its police power over all types of business operations. Financial aid plus some additional factor might lead to a different conclusion. A mere finding of state control also is not determinative of the question, since a state has considerable measure of control under its police power over all types of business operations. It is not possible to assume that the panoply of law and authority of a state under which people carry on ordinary business, or their private affairs or own property, each enjoying equality in terms of legal capacity would be extraordinary assistance. A finding of state financial support plus an unusual degree of control over the management and policies might lead one to characterise an operation as state action. 97. 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. If a given function is of such public importance and so closely related to governmental functions as to be classified as governmental 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." 15. In Ramaita Dayaram Shetty v. The international Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 S.C. 1628 , a similar view was expressed. This view was again reiterated in U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. V. N. Vajpai, AIR 1980 S.C. 840 and in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, AIR 1981 S.C. 212 . In Rekhi's case their Lordships referred to the earlier decisions in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others and U. P. Warehousing Corporation's case (supra) and then observed as under : "Let us dilate a little on the living essence of constitutional fundamentals if we are not to reduce fundamental rights to paper hopes and people's dupes. The judicial branch shall not commit breach of faith with the bill of rights by interpretative exoneration of the State from observance of these founding faiths. The higher values enacted into Part III of the Constitution certainly bind, the State in its executive and legislative branches. The judicial branch shall not commit breach of faith with the bill of rights by interpretative exoneration of the State from observance of these founding faiths. The higher values enacted into Part III of the Constitution certainly bind, the State in its executive and legislative branches. They are constitutional guarantees to the Indian people, not fleeting premises in common enactments. So long as they last in the National Charter they should not be truncated in their application unless a contra-indication is clearly written into the prescription, as in Article 31-A, 31-B and 31-C. Article 12 is a special definition with a broader goal. Far from restricting the concept of State it enlarges the scope to embrace all authorities under the control of Government. The constitutional philosophy of a democratic, socialist Republic mandated to undertake a multitude of socio-economic operations inspires Part IV and so we must envision of State entering the vast territory of industrial and commercial activity, competitively or monopolistically, for ensuring the welfare of the people. This expansive role of the State under Part IV is not played as the expense of the cherished rights of the people entrenched in Part III since both the sets of imperatives are complementary and co-exist harmoniously. Wherever the Constitution has felt the need to subordinate Part III to Part IV it has specified it and in absence of such express provisions, both the Parts must and can flourish happily together given benign judicial comprehension a law (State of) Kerala v. Thomas (1976)2 SCC 310 . There is no inherent conflict between the two parts if orchestrated humanely. We are at pains to emphasise this perspective because the substance of Part III, save where the Constitution says so, shall not be sacrificed at the altar of part IV by the stratagem of incorporation. It is well known, and surely within the erudite and experienced ken of our 'founding fathers', that Government embarks on myriad modern commercial activities by resort to the jurisprudential gift of personification through incorporation. This contrivance of carrying on business activities by the State through statutory corporations, Government companies and other bodies with legal personality, simplifies and facilitates transactions and operations beyond the traditional and tardy processes of governmental desks and cells noted for their red tape exercise and drowsy charms. This contrivance of carrying on business activities by the State through statutory corporations, Government companies and other bodies with legal personality, simplifies and facilitates transactions and operations beyond the traditional and tardy processes of governmental desks and cells noted for their red tape exercise and drowsy charms. But to use the corporate methodology is not to liberate the State from its basic obligation to obey Part III. To don the mantle of company is to free the State from the inevitable constraints of governmental slow motion, not to play truant with the great rights. Otherwise, a cunning plurality of corporations taking over almost every State business-the post and the rail road, the T. V. and the radio, every economic ministry's activity, why, even social welfare work will cheat the people of Part III rights by the easy plea. " No admission for bill of rights; no state here." From Indian Posts and Telegraphs Limited to Indian Defence Manufacturers Limited from Social Welfare Board to Backward Classes Corporation, the nation will be told that "the State had ceased to be save for the non-negotiable sovereign functions." and fundamental rights may suffer eclipse only to be viewed in museum glass cases. Such a situation will be a treachery on the founding fathers, a mockery of the Constitution and a Government by puppetry because the crowd of corporations which have carved out all functions will still be controlled completely by the switch boards of bureaucrats and political bosses from remote control rooms in Government Secretariats. The extended definition of "the State" in Article 12 is not to be deadened but quickened by judicial construction. Before our eyes the corporate phenomenon is becoming ubiquitous. What was archaically done yesterday by Govt. Departments is alertly executed today by Government companies, statutory corporations and like bodies and this tribe may legitimately increase tomorrow." 16. In all these cases, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were called upon to examine the scope of the phrase 'other authorities' in the context of bodies/ institutions created under the statutes framed by the legislature. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 S.C. 487 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the distinction of creation by a statute or under a statute is immaterial. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 S.C. 487 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the distinction of creation by a statute or under a statute is immaterial. Bhagawati, J. who spoke for the Constitution Bench observed as under : "It is immaterial for determining whether a corporation is an authority, whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Govt. and not as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is 'born but why it has been brought into existence. The Corporation may be a statutory corporation created by a statute or it may be a Government Company or a company formed under the Companies Act, or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or any other similar statute. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Govt. and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the Govt. is not limited to a corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided on a consideration of the relevant factors whether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression 'authority' in Article 12. A juristic entity which may be " State" for the purpose of Parts III and IV would not be so for the purpose of Part XIV or any other provision of the Constitution." That was a case in which Regional Engineering College, Srinagar was being managed by a society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898, and was receiving grant from the Government. The Court held that the College was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships summarised the tests for determination of the question as to whether a body falls within the ambit of the expression 'other authorities'. The Court held that the College was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships summarised the tests for determination of the question as to whether a body falls within the ambit of the expression 'other authorities'. The Court observed as under : "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 ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ). 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 with 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 dear 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 indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character." (3) "It may also be relevant factor........ whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which 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 in 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." The same view has been reiterated and restated in the case of B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute and others, AIR 1984 S.C. 363 , P. K Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India, AIR 1984 S.C. 541 . The Latter case was of Indian Council of Agriculture and Research, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Court noticed that the Council was registered at the instance of the Government and continued to be an attached office of the Govt. It was an inseparable adjunct of Govt. of India having as 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. 17. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguli, AIR 1986 S.C. 1571 , a further extension to the scope of the term 'other authorities' was given after making reference to various Articles of the Constitution and the provisions of General Clauses Act. The Supreme Court observed as under : "While an explanatory and restrictive definition confines the meaning of the word defined to what is stated in the interpretation clause, so that wherever the word defined is used in the particular statute in which that interpretation clause occurs, it will bear only that meaning unless where, as is usually provided, the subject or context otherwise requires an extensive definition expands or extends the meaning of the word defined to include within it what would otherwise not have been comprehended in it when the word defined is used in its ordinary sense. Article 12 uses the word "includes". It thus extends the meaning of the expression "the State" so as to include within it also what otherwise may not have been comprehended by that expression when used in its ordinary legal sense. Article 12 defines the expression "the State" while the other Articles of the Constitution such as Article 152 and Article 308, and clause (58) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act define the term 'State". Article 12 defines the expression "the State" while the other Articles of the Constitution such as Article 152 and Article 308, and clause (58) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act define the term 'State". The deliberate use of the expression "the State" in Article 12 as also in Article 36 would have normally shown that this expression was used to denote the State in its ordinary and Constitutional sense of an independent or sovereign State and the inclusive clause in Article 12 would have extended this meaning to include within its scope whatever has been expressly set out in Article 12. The definition of the expression "the State" in Article 12 is, however, for the purposes of Parts III and IV of the Constitution. The contents of these two parts clearly show that the expression "the State" in Article 12 as also in Article 36 is not confined to its ordinary and Constitutional sense as extended by the inclusive portion of Article 12 but is used in the concept of the State in relation to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV of the Constitution which principles are declared by Article 37 to be fundamental to the governance of the court and enjoin upon the State to apply in making laws." After making reference to some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court further observed as under : "If there is an instrumentality or agency of the State which has assumed the garb of a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, it does not follow that it thereby ceases to be an instrumentality or agency of the State. For the purposes of Article 12 one must necessarily see through the corporate veil to ascertain whether behind that veil is the face of an instrumentality or agency of the State." The Court specifically held that absence of monopoly is not sufficient to divest a Company or Corporation of this character of an instrumentality or agency of a state.In Tekraj Vasandi alias K. L. Basandhi v. Union of India and others, AIR 1983 SC 469, a two judges Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to examine the question as to whether the institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. After examining the object of the society, the Court observed that the same were not governmental business but were to equip Members of Parliament and the State Legislatures with the requisite knowledge and experience for better functioning. Many of the objects adopted by the Society were not confined to the Houses of Parliament and were intended to have an impact on the Society at large. The funds could be made available from outside sources apart from the financial assistance rendered by the Govt. On that basis, the Court held that the Institute is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. While holding so, the Court proceeded to observe as under : "There are tests formulated by several cases of the Supreme Court to find out whether an institution is a 'state'. There cannot indeed be a strait jacket formula. It is not necessary that all the tests should be satisfied for reaching the conclusion either for or against holding an institution to be 'State'. In a given case some of the features may emerge, of-boldly and prominently that a second view may not be possible. There may yet be other cases where the matter would be on the border line and it would be difficult to take one view or the other outright." "In a Welfare State, Governmental control is very pervasive and in fact touches all aspects of social existence. In the absence of a fair application of the tests to be made, there is possibility of turning every non-governmental society into an agency or instrumentality of the State. That obviously would not serve the purpose and may be far from reality. In the absence of a fair application of the tests to be made, there is possibility of turning every non-governmental society into an agency or instrumentality of the State. That obviously would not serve the purpose and may be far from reality. A broad picture of the matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping the realities and human experiences in view so as to reach a reasonable conclusion. In the facts of the case, it cannot be held that IPCS is either an agency or instrumentality of the State so as to come within the purview of 'other authorities' in Article 12 of the Constitution, ICPS is a case of its type- typical in many ways and the normal tests may perhaps not properly apply to test its character." 18. In All India Sainik Schools Employees Association v. The Defence Minister-cum-Chsirman, Board of Governors, Sainik School Society, New Delhi and others, AIR 1989 S.C. 88 their Lordships were examining the claim of employees of Sainik Schools at par with those employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas. The Court held that Sainik School Society is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution but refused to enforce the equality clause on the basis of comparison made with Kendriya Vidyalayas. While doing so, the court observed as under:- "Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is a creation of the Government of India and is wholly financed out of the Central Exchequer. Sainik School Society, as already pointed out, is not wholly funded by the Central Government. In fact substantial contribution for running the Sainik School comes from the funds of the State where the school is located. The Central Government's contribution is minimal. The made of funding is mainly through scholarship by the State payable to the students. It follows out of this fact that the employees of the Sainik School cannot be treated as Central Government employees nor can they be treated as at par with the employees of KVS." 19. The Central Government's contribution is minimal. The made of funding is mainly through scholarship by the State payable to the students. It follows out of this fact that the employees of the Sainik School cannot be treated as Central Government employees nor can they be treated as at par with the employees of KVS." 19. In Chandra Mohan Khanna v. N.C.E.R.T., J. T. 1991(4) S. C. 233 , the point which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was about the maintainability of writ petition against N.C.E.R.T. After making an elaborate reference to the memorandum of association of N.C.E.R.T. and the Rules thereof, the Supreme Court held that the institute does not satisfy the requirements of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. While doing so, the Supreme Court observed that there is no cut and dried formula which would provide correct division of bodies into those which are instrumentalities or agencies of the Government and those which are not. The court further observed : "(1). The powers, functions, finances and control of the Government are some of the indicating factors to answer the question whether a body is 'state' or not. (2) Where the financial assistance from the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the institution, or the share capital of the corporation is completely held by the government, it would afford some indication of the body being impregnated with Government character. (3) It may be a relevant factor if the institution or the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication. (5) If the functions of the institution are of public importance and related to governmental functions, it would also be a relevant factor. (6) The State control, however vast and pervasive, is not determinative. (7) The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. (8) The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body, and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is 'State'. (7) The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. (8) The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body, and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is 'State'. (9) If the Government operates behind a corporate veil, carrying out governmental activity and governmental functions of vital public importance, there may be little difficulty in identifying the body as 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.' This maze of authorities broadly indicate the tests which are to be applied in the facts of each case, which come before the Court, to hold as to whether a particular body, institution, company or corporation falls within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Apart from financial assistance, the important factors which are to be kept in mind are as to whether the State exercises deep and pervasive control over the management of the body and as to whether the body is carrying on functions of public importance and which are related to governmental functions. 20. In his work 'The Modern State' R. M. Mac Iver (1926), while dealing with the subject of business of the State, observed as under : "The state with its command of resources and its universal reach can build for the future in ways that no partial organisation may attempt. It can overrule the near selfish aims that would waste for immediate advantage the greater gifts of nature. It can carry on vast works of constructive enterprise whose benefits will be shared by future generations. It can control by means of the forethought which is proper to its might and permanence, the hapazard endevours of individuals which result, when left alone, in sprawling, ill-built, congested cities and a slovenly, ill-tended countryside. It can preserve and enhance those signal beauties of forest and lake and mountain which the advance of industrialism threatens. It can carry on fruitful experiments in irrigation, the utilisation of the soil, the breeding of plants and animals, the control of insect pests, and other services of great significance for the development of agriculture. It can promote the establishment of industries, by providing initial aid and by facilitating the discovery and application of scientific methods. It can carry on fruitful experiments in irrigation, the utilisation of the soil, the breeding of plants and animals, the control of insect pests, and other services of great significance for the development of agriculture. It can promote the establishment of industries, by providing initial aid and by facilitating the discovery and application of scientific methods. It can mitigate the severity of economic fluctuations by its control over currency, credit, and its own expenditures. In a great variety of ways it can encourage the industry, enterprise of Government so long as it does not yield to the constant temptation to benefit the part at the expense of the whole." "These tasks, moreover, extend for beyond the physical and economic developments we have outlined. The business of the state includes the conservation and development of human capacities as well as of economic resources, though here it is more necessary that it should beware of repressing the inner springs of conduct. Yet there are definite conditions requisite for the evocation of human quality, definite services of a universal character which every human being needs. Of these the first is education, a subject on which we have already touched. It is surely significant that here the state has taken over and vastly developed a task which was formerly assigned to the family and then extended by special associations such as the guild and the church. Of course the family still acts as an agency of education, and always must, but it is unqualified to give its members the continuous training requisite for life in a civilised community. It is the state which inevitably took over this function. It could do so just because (unlike the church) it has no particularities interest, because therefore it can call on every one to assist in a service and undertake obligations whose universal character is clear, because also it alone can command the resources for the greatest of those enterprises which return their 'dividend' invisibly and to the whole community." 21. Prof. K. T. Shah, who was Member of the Constituent Assembly, in his note dated 23.12.1946 made certain interesting observations which need be reproduced:- "Let us now proceed to consider what these rights are, and how they are to be observed in practice and enforced. Prof. K. T. Shah, who was Member of the Constituent Assembly, in his note dated 23.12.1946 made certain interesting observations which need be reproduced:- "Let us now proceed to consider what these rights are, and how they are to be observed in practice and enforced. The most convenient method for appreciating these rights would be to divide them into some definite categories, which would comprise almost every one of the rights or privileges that have been incorporated hitherto in the individual constitutions, and also referred to in the United Nations Charter. The most important categories are : (1) Civil Rights, (2) Political Rights, (3) Economic and Social rights." "Notwithstanding this classification, there are certain vital rights common to all men irrespective of their nationality, race, sex, speech or religion, which constitute the very foundation of all these rights included in the several categories. The right to life for example is at the root of all this idea. This does not merely mean the sanctity of either human being except for stated (sic) which must not be infringed by any other human being except for stated reasons or by due process of law. It means also the fullest opportunity to develop one's personality and potentiality to the highest level possible in the existing stage of our civilization. Life, that is to say, the mere right to exist, will have little value, if it is to be bereft of any opportunity to develop or bring out what is in every man or woman. It follows inevitably that the right to live is the right to live decently as a member of a civilised society and have all the freedom and advantages that would go to make life agreeable, and living assured in a reasonable standard of comfort and decency. This right and all it implies cannot be conditioned or restricted except by its own corresponding obligations." Prof. Shah further wrote. "These rights, it may be added, form the corresponding obligations of the State which guarantees them. Thus, for instance, the very basic right to life or liberty requires that the State keep up sufficient machinery at its disposal to prevent any would-be aggressor aiming at the life or liberty of anyone in the community. The right to work, again or employment necessitates such organisation of the resources of the country, in a plan, as would secure adequately, remunerative work for all citizens. The right to work, again or employment necessitates such organisation of the resources of the country, in a plan, as would secure adequately, remunerative work for all citizens. The right to health and education pre-supposes the establishment and maintenance of sufficient Schools, colleges, libraries and laboratories; as well as hospitals, nursing homes, dispensaries and medical and nursing service for treating and preventing disease, which only the State or its delegate can provide for all effectively." 22. The framers of our Constitution had taken into consideration the constitutions of various countries as well as the universal declaration of the Human Rights, while preparing the draft of the Constitution. The founding fathers incorporated certain rights of citizens and individuals in Part III of the Constitution while laying down certain specific duties on the State in Part IV of the Constitution in the form of Directive Principles and though by virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution, the provisions contained in Part IV are not enforceable by any Court, the principles contained in that part are fundamental in the governance of the country and the State is under an obligation to apply these principles in making laws.The preamble of the Constitution proclaims: "We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens : Justice, social economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; In our constituent assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution." The preamble contains the key for the interpretation of the various constitutional provisions. The State has three organs, namely, the Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary. The areas of operation of each of these three organs have been defined by various provisions of the Constitution. However, every organ of the State which represents the people of India is under the obligation to make an endeavour to achieve the ideals specified in the preamble. By virtue of part IV(A) of the Constitution it has now been made obligatory for every citizen to discharge his fundamental duties. While part III prohibits the State from doing certain things, part IV enjoins upon it to do certain things. By virtue of part IV(A) of the Constitution it has now been made obligatory for every citizen to discharge his fundamental duties. While part III prohibits the State from doing certain things, part IV enjoins upon it to do certain things. Part IV (A)imposes constitutional duties on every citizen of India. Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution are enforceable by different constitutional and legal remedies available to individuals. These are individual rights and, therefore, machinery has been provided for their enforcement. Part IV contains those principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country. These can appropriately be described as social rights or rights of the society. Since the State represents the people of the India, it has been enjoined upon the State to apply these principles in making laws. Therefore, even though the Court may not be able to actively enforce the directive principles of state policy by compelling the State to apply them in the governance of the country or making of the laws, nevertheless, the Court can, if the State commits a breach of its duty by acting contrary to the directive principles, prevent it from doing so. Likewise the Court can decline to enforce the claim of right by an individual if it is found that he has failed to discharge his fundamental duties. Duties or the obligations which the State is required to discharge in the governance of the country are certainly governmental functions though they may not be regal or sovereign functions. The out moded concept of the State having only a duty to enforce the law or to protect the frontiers or to collect the revenues is no more acceptable in view of the social obligations which the constitution has imposed on the State. The State (legislature as well as executive) is under an obligation to strive towards achieving the goals of social, economic and political justice, equality of status and of opportunity. Unless the State takes measures for achievement of these goals by doing its duties as specified in Part IV of the Constitution, it will be impossible to achieve the goals set out in the preamble. It is the duty of the State as also of every citizen to do its/his duties and create a situation where it is possible for each and every individual of this country to enjoy Part III rights namely, the Fundamental Rights. It is the duty of the State as also of every citizen to do its/his duties and create a situation where it is possible for each and every individual of this country to enjoy Part III rights namely, the Fundamental Rights. As rightly pointed out by Mac Iver the State has taken over various tasks and service for evocation of human quality. Prof. Shah was conscious of the obligations of the State and every citizen towards the people of this country when he said that life will have little value if it is bereft of any opportunity to develop or bring out what is in every man or woman and the right to live. Right' to live decently as a member of civilised society and have all the freedom and advantages that would go to make life agreeable and living assured in a reasonable standard of comfort and decency. For achieving this he thought that every individual must have a right to health and education and for that, establishment and maintenance of sufficient schools, colleges etc. are sine qua non. It is, therefore, evident that it is the State's obligation to make effective provision for education. No doubt the State has to take into consideration its economic capacity while making effective provisions for securing the right to work, to education etc. But it cannot detract from the fact that it is one of the basic obligations of the State. It is one of the essential services that the State must provide to its citizens. Health and education are two areas where perhaps the State cannot claim any exemption in the in the discharge of its duties. Of course in these matters the State can discharge its obligations either through its Departments or through its agencies or through its instrumentalities. It is no doubt true that these services can be rendered even by individuals, who have made service to the society, motto of their life, either individually or in the form of a group through the medium of registered society or company but if the State provides substantial financial assistance and exercises control over the working of such body, it is not possible to accept the plea that such body is not an agency or instrumentality of the State. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether a society or a company or corporation engaged in the field of service is an agency or instrumentality of the State. The Court will have to consider the composition of such body, source of its finance, the degree of control exercised by the State etc. 23. The memorandum of association of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti shows that it has been registered on the basis of an application moved by a group of persons before the Registrar of Societies. The applicants were Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (Chairman), the then Minister of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, -Shri Y. N. Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, Shri L. S. Narayan, Financial Adviser, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, Dr. P. L. Malhotra, Director, National Council of Educational Research and Training, Prof. Satya Bhushan, Director, National Institute of Public Educational Planning and Service Administartion, Dr. T. V. Kunnunkal, Chairman, Central Board of Public Secondary Education, Dr. R. C. Sharma, Acting Commissioner Kendriya Public Vidyalaya Sangathan. Clause 3 of the memorandum of association specifies the objects for which the society has been established. These objects are to establish, endow, maintain, control and manage schools, called the Navodaya Vidhalaya and to do all acts and things necessary for or conducive to the promotion of such schools. These schools are sought to be established with the following objectives : "To provide good quality modern education including a strong component of inculcation of values, awareness of the environment, adventure activities and physical education to the relented children predominantly from the rural areas without regard to their family's socio-economic condition. (ii) To provide facilities, at a suitable stage, for instruction through a common medium, viz., Hindi and English, all over the country. (iii) Offer a common core-curriculum for ensuring comparability in standards and to facilitate an understanding of the common and composite heritage of our people. (iv) To progressively bring students from one part of the country to another in each school to promote national integration and enrich the social content. (v) To serve as a focal point for improvement in quality of school education through training of teachers in live situations and sharing of experience and facilities." Clause 4 of the memorandum of association provides that the Govt. (v) To serve as a focal point for improvement in quality of school education through training of teachers in live situations and sharing of experience and facilities." Clause 4 of the memorandum of association provides that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development may appoint one or more persons to review the work of the society and to hold enquiry into the affairs of it. Clause 5 of the memorandum of association empowers the Govt. of India to issue such directions to the society as it may consider necessary for the furtherance of the objectives of the society and for ensuring its proper and effective functioning. The society is bound to comply with such directions. The income and property of the society derived from whatever source is to apply towards the promotion of the objects set forth in the memorandum of association, subject to the conditions or limitations which the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Human Resource Development may from time to time impose. The society is prohibited from transferring, directly or indirectly, by way of dividends, bonds or otherwise, income or property of the society to any other person who are or at any time have been members of the society. The members of the society consists of the functionaries who made application for registration of the society. In addition to them, two Education Secretaries of the State /Union Territory Govt. to be nominated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, four Educationists/Scientists to be nominated by the Ministry of Human Resource Developments, two representatives from the Industry to be nominated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, two Principles of Navodaya Vidyalaya to be nominated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Director of the Society (ex-officio) and joint Director (Admn.) and ex-officio Secretary of the Society are also its members. The Executive Committee of the Society consists of the Minister of Human Resource development, Vice Chairman of the Society, Director of the Society, Representative of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. and Ministry of Finance, Director, NCERT, Director, National Instt. of Educational Planning and Administration, Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, two educationists who are members of the Society, Joint Director (Academic) and Joint Director (Admn.) and ex-officio Secretary of the Society. and Ministry of Finance, Director, NCERT, Director, National Instt. of Educational Planning and Administration, Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, two educationists who are members of the Society, Joint Director (Academic) and Joint Director (Admn.) and ex-officio Secretary of the Society. The meetings of the Executive Committee of the Society are to be held as per the discretion of the Chairman but at-least once in every quarter. The Chariman is ordinarily required to preside over the meeting. The Director is the principal executive officer of the Society and is responsible for the proper administration of the affairs of the Society and the properties and institutions. The representative of the Ministry of Finance is the Financial Advisor to the Society and the Society is to take advice from him before any decision on the matters concerning financial aspect of the affairs of the Society is taken. In case the advice of the Financial Advisor is not accepted, the matter is to be referred to the Govt. of India. The Finance Committee, a sub-committee of the Executive Committee, consists of all persons who are representatives of the two Ministries and the Director. The Finance Committee exercises overall control on all the financial matters of the Society. The academic Advisory Committee consists of Director, four persons to be nominated by the Chairman from amongst outstanding educationists, representatives of NCERT etc. This Committee gives advice on all academic matters specified in para 46 of the articles of the association. The accounts of the Society are to be maintained in the forms to be prescribed by the Govt. of India. These accounts are required to be audited annually under the directions of the Govt. of India. The Society is required to submit annual report in the Ministry of Human Resource Development as per Article 57 of the articles of association. The Rules of the Society can be altered only with the prior approval of the Govt. of India. 24. So far as kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is concerned, it is also a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. The primary aim of the Sangathan is to administer the Central Schools Scheme formulated in the Ministry of Education and Culture. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the memorandum of association of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are more or less identical to those of the Navodaya Vidyalayas. The primary aim of the Sangathan is to administer the Central Schools Scheme formulated in the Ministry of Education and Culture. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the memorandum of association of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are more or less identical to those of the Navodaya Vidyalayas. This Society was registered on the basis of an application submitted by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, Deputy Financial Adviser, Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, Deputy Secretary (JIO), Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, Joint Director, NCERT Director of Public Instruction, Orissa, Director of Education, Rajasthan, Director, Central Schools Organisation and Under Secretary, Ministry of Education. The membership of the Sangathan consist of the Chariman, Vice Chairman, Financial Member and other 19 members. The Union Minister or the Minister of State or Deputy Minister in the Union Ministry of Education and Culture, who is incharge of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is the Chairman. Others include the two educationsts to be nominated by the Ministry of Education, three Members of Parliament to be nominated by the Ministry of Education, Commissioner of the Sangathan and Dy. Commissioner of the Sangathan are Govt. officers and representatives of different Ministries of the Govt. of India and some State Govts. The Board of Governors of the Sangathan consists of all persons who are its members. Thus the entire Board of Governors consists of the Govt. functionaries and/or Members of Parliament. Only exceptions are Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Sangathan. The Board of Governors is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the objects of the Sangathan as set forth in the Memorandum of Association. The Board is responsible for the management of all affairs and funds of the Sangathan and has authority to exercise all the powers of the Sangathan. The Minister or Minister of State or Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Education and Culture who is the Chairman of the Sangthan, is also the Chairman of its Board of Govenors. Detailed provisions have been made ofr the recruitment of the staff, their conditions of service etc. The Financial Advisor to the Ministry of Education is the Financial Advisor of the Sangathan. Detailed provisions have been made ofr the recruitment of the staff, their conditions of service etc. The Financial Advisor to the Ministry of Education is the Financial Advisor of the Sangathan. His advice is to be taken before the Board takes any decision on matters concerning financial aspects of the affairs of the Sangathan and in case his advice is not accepted, the matter is referred to the Govt. of India. The accounts are to be maintained in the forms prescribed by the Govt. of India. They are to be audited annually in such manner as the Govt. of India may direct. Annual report is to be submitted to the Govt. Rules and Regulations of the Sangathan can be altered with the prior approval and consent of the Govt. of India. The Govt. of India is entitled to give directives to the Kendriya Vidyalayas and the Sagathan is bound by these directives. Both Navodaya Vidyalaya and Kendriya Vidhalaya receive funds from the Govt. of India. 25. The National Council of Educational Research and Training is also a society registered under the Act. it is governed by the Memorandum of Association. The object of NCERT is to assist and advise Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of its policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly in the field of school education. For achieving this objective, the Council can undertake several kinds of programmes and activities which include coordination on research, extension services and training, dissemination of improved educational techniques and practices in schools, collaboration in educational programmes, distribution of ideas and information, preparation and publication of information, preparation and publication of books, materials, periodicals and other literature and allied activities. The Council is free to apply the income and property towards its objectives in such manner as it may think fit. The Govt. of India has a limited control in respect of the expenditure of grants made by the Govt. The Govt. of India could review the work and progress of the council and take appropriate action to give effect to the reports received on enquiries. The Govt. could issue directions to the Council on important policy and programmes. Rules show that the Council not only includes the Govt. officials but includes the Chairman of the University Grants Commission, four Vice chancellors and a number of nominees, four from school teachers and several others. The Govt. could issue directions to the Council on important policy and programmes. Rules show that the Council not only includes the Govt. officials but includes the Chairman of the University Grants Commission, four Vice chancellors and a number of nominees, four from school teachers and several others. The affairs of the Council are conducted by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is empowered to enter arrangements with Govt., public or private organisations or individuals in furtherance of its objectives and implementation of its programmes. In chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational Research and Training & others, JT 1991 (4) S. C. 233 , their Lordships held that the activities of the Council are not wholly related to governmental functions. The Executive Committee is entitled to enter into arrangement with the Govt., public or private organisations and the individuals in furtherance of the objectives and implementation of its programmes. The funds of the council consist of grants made by the Govt., contribution from other sources and income from its own assets. It is free to apply its income and property towards the promotion of its objectives and implementation of the programmes. On the basis of the analysis, the Apex Court held that NCERT is an autonomous body. 26. If in contrast, cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti are examined in the context of their Memorandum of Associations and Rules, it can be seen that both these bodies have been created by group of persons who were Ministers, Secretaries and other functionaries of the Govt. In case of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, none else than the Minister of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India was an applicant. The primary objectives of both these societies are to administer the Central Schools and Scheme formulated in the Govt. of India Ministry of Human Education and Culture (so far as Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is concerned) and to establish, endow, maintain and control and manage schools in rural areas (so far as Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti) is concerned: The governing bodies of both these societies consist exciusively of the Ministers of the concerned Ministries, Govt. of India and Govt. officials. The Govt. of India exercises deep control over the functioning of these bodies either by issuing directions on its own or through its representatives. In the Financial matters the advice of the Financial Adviser, who is none else than a Govt. of India and Govt. officials. The Govt. of India exercises deep control over the functioning of these bodies either by issuing directions on its own or through its representatives. In the Financial matters the advice of the Financial Adviser, who is none else than a Govt. officer has to be taken and if the Society does not agree with his advice, the matter is to be referred to the Govt. of India. The entire finance of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are to be provided from the central exchequer. So is the position in case of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. It has not been shown by the Respondents that these two bodies are receiving financial assistance from other sources and if any such assistance is being received, what is the proposition of it in comparison to the financial assistance from the central exchequer. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was established after the Govt. of India has taken over 20 Regimental Schools as Central Schools or Kendriya Vidyalayas. Initially these Kendriya Vidyalayas were governed through the Ministry of Defence but later on it was thought proper to register a society through the Ministry of Education and this is how Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was registered. Even the second central pay commission had recommended that the Govt should provide facilities for education of its employees of transferable jobs. The Govt. of India has approved the scheme for providing facilities to the transferable Central Govt. employees. The Navodaya Vidyalayas were established as a part of 1986 New Education Policy. These Schools have been organised in such a way that they cater the need of talented children from the rural areas. It is borne out from the publication work related to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan that the Govt. assistance runs to the tune of 150 to 160 Crores per annum. Likewise huge financial assistance is being provided to Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. In contrast to NCERT, these bodies are not entitled to enter into an agreement with public or private organisations or individuals. They do not have the freedom of applying their income and property. While the main objective of NCERT is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in implementation of its polices and major programmes, the main objective of these two bodies is to impart education to the children of Central Govt. employees, Defence Personnel and talented children of rural areas. While the main objective of NCERT is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in implementation of its polices and major programmes, the main objective of these two bodies is to impart education to the children of Central Govt. employees, Defence Personnel and talented children of rural areas. Thus, from the point of view of the basic objectives, the extent of control exercised by the Govt. of India, source of funds, etc., there is wide difference between NCERT on the one hand and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on the other hand. While the first body merely renders assistance and advice to the Ministry of Education and culture, the two bodies actively carry on one of the governmental duties of providing education to masses. The direct, deep and pervasive control of the Govt. of India in respect of the management of these two bodies, funding by the Govt. of India and the fact that these bodies are rendering important public service which constitute the obligatory function of the State, are sufficient for holding that these two bodies are instrumentalities of the State. Once they are held to be the instrumentalities of the State, they are clearly covered by the expression 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 27. The result of the above discussion is that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners is over-ruled. The Writ Petitions may now be listed for further consideration.Preliminary objection over-ruled. *******