JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---By consent, matter is heard finally. 2. The respondent filed suit before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur, being R.C.S. No. 1538 of 1994, for declaration and injunction against the appellants herein. One of the issue framed before the trial Court was that whether the respondent/plaintiff prove that the appellants/defendants made discrimination or acted arbitrarily in not calling the respondent/plaintiff for interview. The trial Court answered the said issue in the negative. When the matter went in appeal before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur, the Appellate Court has answered the said issue in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The Appellate Court has, however, concluded that the impugned action of the appellants was violative of equal opportunity guaranteed to the respondent under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is this decision which is the subject matter of challenge in the present second appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that before recording a finding that the impugned action of the appellants amounted to violation of protection of equal opportunity within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Appellate Court ought to have first decided the question as to whether the appellants were State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. I have no hesitation in accepting the said contention raised on behalf of the appellants inasmuch as unless it is held that the person or authority who has caused discrimination is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the question of violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India would not arise in law. 4. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court to enquire into the question as to whether the appellants are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. If the said question is answered in the negative, then the reasoning given by the Appellate Court that the impugned action of the appellants has caused discrimination would not survive and would not require any further scrutiny in law. If the said question is answered in the negative, then the reasoning given by the Appellate Court that the impugned action of the appellants has caused discrimination would not survive and would not require any further scrutiny in law. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of (Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another v. Pradubidri Pattabhiram Bhat and another)1, reported in 1993(1) Mh.L.J. 1 to buttress the argument that the appellants are not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since the matter is remanded to the first Appellate Court, I hope and trust that the first Appellate Court would examine the said contention and record a clear finding in that behalf. 5. It is, however, made clear that if the question in issue, as remanded to the Appellate Court, is answered against the appellants, it would be open to the appellants to challenge the correctness of the findings regarding discrimination in the appeal that would be filed in this Court after the order is passed by the first Appellate Court. 6. The 3rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur, shall expedite the hearing of the appeal; and permit the parties to adduce evidence or place materials on record in connection with the issue as to whether the appellants are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and decide the appeal preferably within six months from the receipt of this order. The respondent has no objection for remanding the matter to examine the aforesaid issue. 7. The second appeal is partly allowed as aforesaid and the matter stands remanded to the first Appellate Court. Appeal partly allowed. -----