JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. The petitioner, who is serving as a., Lecturer in Physics in the Regional College of Education, Ajmer, has filed the present writ petition in this court contending inter-alia, that the respondent-college is run and administered by the National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi (in short `NCERT'). This Council is a part and parcel of Education Department of the Ministry of Education (Now Ministry of Human Resources and Development) Government of India, and hence, it is under the ultimate control of the Government of India. 3. It has been contended in the writ petition that `NCERT' is an instrumentality of the `State' and comes within the scope of the term `other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has further been contended by the petitioner that he was sent on -deputation to Nigeria after his selection by Federal Public Service Commission of Nigeria which held selection at New Delhi and other places as Senior Education Officer. After completion of three years' term, at the request of Government of Nigeria, the deputation period of petitioner was extended by another two years. On his return from Nigeria, the petitioner resumed his duties with the Council at New Delhi on July 26, 1984. 4. In the meanwhile the Council had issued a memorandum dated September 26/30, 1983, proposing an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rule of 1965'). The petitioner submitted his reply dated November 21, 1983, to the memorandum from Nigeria. Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the directions from the Director of the Council vide order dated February 24/27, 1984. The petitioner made his detailed submissions before the inquiry officer on October 19, 1985 and December 4, 1985. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the effect that charges were not established against the petitioner. In appeal, however, the disciplinary authority recorded dis-agreement with the conclusions drawn by the inquiring authority and imposed a penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and further directed that the period between December 2, 1980 to December 9, 1984 be treated as dies non. In appeal, however, the disciplinary authority recorded dis-agreement with the conclusions drawn by the inquiring authority and imposed a penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and further directed that the period between December 2, 1980 to December 9, 1984 be treated as dies non. Against the order of disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated September 28, 1987 to the appellate authority, i.e., the Minister in the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India. The said appeal of the petitioner was finally heard and decided by the appellate authority vide order dated December 16/22, 1988 whereby the appeal was dismissed. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority had decided the appeal without offering any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises and is not a reasoned order. 5. The perusal of impugned order dated December 16/22, 1988 reveals that the same was passed by respondent No. 1, i.e., the appellate authority, NCERT, New Delhi, after examining various submissions of the petitioner on a review petition dated September 28, 1987 and did not find any ground for interference or to dis-agree with the findings of the disciplinary authority which had imposed the penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. Consequently, the appellate authority rejected the review petition preferred against the decision of disciplinary authority thereby upholding the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 6. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that since the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority stood merged with the order passed by the appellate authority on a review petition, it cannot be treated as concurrent findings of the two authorities and as such the impugned order is assailable before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be a minor punishment as so observed by the appellate authority in this impugned order referred to above.. 7. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be a minor punishment as so observed by the appellate authority in this impugned order referred to above.. 7. Shri G.C. Chatterjee, learned counsel for NCERT has controverted the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the present writ petition has been preferred against the concurrent findings of two authorities i.e. the disciplinary authority (respondent No. 2) as well as the order of appellate authority of the NCERT and, hence the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. On merits it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the disciplinary authority after considering all material aspects of the case as well as inquiry report had ordered the withholding of the four annual grade increments falling due immediately on or after the date of issue of the order with cumulative effect on account of unauthorised absence from duty from December 2, 1980 to December 9, 1984 which was treated as dies-non. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellate authority found sufficient ground to uphold the order of the disciplinary authority and the requirements of procedure, as laid down under the Rule of 1965 which have been adhered to by the authorities, and, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his contention advanced at the Bar, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT & Ors. 1991(4) SCC 578 , which is a direct decision on the issue involved in controversy. The question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether the NCERT is an instrumentality of the `State' covered by a definition of `State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was held by the /Apex Court that NCERT is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It's object is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of Government policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly, school education. It was held by the /Apex Court that NCERT is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It's object is to assist and advise the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare in the implementation of Government policies and major programmes in the field of education particularly, school education. It was further held by the Apex Court that the Government control is confined only to the extent of proper utilisation of the grant. The NCERT is thus, largely an autonomous body and does not fall within the definition of `State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. 8. Shri Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Tikaram v. Mundikata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others, 1984(4) SCC 219 . 9. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is neither attracted nor applicable to the facts of the instant case, since the question which had arisen before the Apex Court in the said matter was regarding the powers of the Director of the Education to review the orders of the subordinate authority and to that extent, it was held by the Apex Court that the Government is always amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, the relief sought in the writ petition was not directly against the management on the basic clause in the school cadre. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival submissions made by them and also the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable since the respondent Council is not an instrumentality of the `State' as so observed by the Apex Court in the matter of Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT (supra). The writ petition is consequently dismissed. There is no order as to costs.Writ Petition dismissed. *******