JUDGMENT Smti. Anima Hazarika, J. 1. Grievance made and relief claimed in both the writ petitions being same, those are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Challenge in these two writ petitions are made against the order dated 29.05.2009 issued by the respondent No. 6 whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioners have been terminated referring paragraph 2 of the contract of service agreement dated 9/14.07.2007 which is quoted hereunder for better appraisal of the case. The paragraph 2 of the service agreement is exactly same in case of both the writ petitioners and the same is quoted hereinbelow:- 2. If the work and conduct of the First Party during the period of probation or extended period of probation is not found satisfactory, the services of the First Party are liable to be terminated without notice during and on the expiry of the period of probation. The sole judge of the satisfactory completion of the probation will be the Managing Committee of the School. The services of the First Party shall be deemed to have been automatically terminated unless the service is confirmed in writing by the Second Party at the end of the period of probation. 3. Since the services of both the petitioners are terminated during the period of probation it would be appropriate to place the facts in a nutshell. The Principal of Assam Rifles Public School ('ARPS' for short), Laitkor, Shillong, Meghalaya issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidate for filling up posts of Post Graduate Teacher ('PGT' for short) in English and Physics and Trained Graduate Teacher ('TGT' for short) in Physics and Music. The applications alongwith the testimonials and a recent passport size photographs are directed to be sent to the address mentioned to reach on or before 15.05.2007. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioners being qualified and eligible for the posts of TGT (Music) and TGT (Physics) respectively were called for an interview and accordingly they have gone through selection process. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioners being qualified and eligible for the posts of TGT (Music) and TGT (Physics) respectively were called for an interview and accordingly they have gone through selection process. They were selected and on being selected, offer of appointments were made on 10.07.2007 and 04.07.2007 respectively on probation for a period of one (1) year which, however, may be extended to two (2) years at the discretion of the Management on the terms and conditions contained in the "Deed of Service" in ARPS, Laitkor, Shillong in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-9000/-. 5. The offer of appointments so made by the management of ARPS were accepted by the petitioners and accordingly, they joined in. the school on 14.07.2007 and 09.07.2007 respectively. Thereafter the Principal of the School issued office orders dated 08.07.2008 and 09.07.2008 whereby the probationary period of the petitioners were extended till 13.07.2009 and 08.07.2009 respectively. Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 issued the termination letters on 29.05.2009 contending the petitioners' services in the institution are no longer required with effect from 30.05.2009 referring paragraph 2 of the contract of service, making it clear therein that the termination letters have the approval of the Chairman, ARPS Managing Committee and they are entitled to get one month's salary in lieu of notices, directing to vacate the living quarters allotted to them by the forenoon of 30th May, 2009 which are under challenge before this Court, in these writ petitions. 6. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Challenging the action of the respondent No. 6, Mr. 6. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Challenging the action of the respondent No. 6, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended the following points, viz., (a) The advertisement for appointment of post in TGT (Music) and TGT (Physics) did not stipulate that the appointments would initially be on probation but liable to be terminated without notice and the contract of service executed on 14.07.2007 and 04.07.2007 respectively being unconscionable liable to be interfered with under judicial scrutiny; (b) The appointment as TGT (Music) and TGT (Physics) after holding the selection process where for the appointments were made, thereby the petitioners were holding the civil posts which cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry, thus being violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India requires judicial scrutiny under writ jurisdiction; (c) Referring paragraph 2 of the contract of service agreement as indicated above specifying that the satisfactory completion of the period of probation rests on the Managing Committee of the school, whereas no decision was taken in any meeting of the Managing Committee of the school to terminate the services of the petitioners, the impugned termination orders require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being mala fide action on the part of the respondent No. 6; (d) The school authority did not initiate any proceeding for determining as to whether the services of the petitioners were satisfactory or not which can be termed as mala fide and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In addition to the oral arguments advanced, further contentions have been raised referring the Rules of the ARPS which is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by and under the control of Assam Rifles which is a paramilitary organization under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and therefore, is amendable under Article 12 of the Constitution, of India 9. In addition to the oral arguments advanced, further contentions have been raised referring the Rules of the ARPS which is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by and under the control of Assam Rifles which is a paramilitary organization under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and therefore, is amendable under Article 12 of the Constitution, of India 9. In support of his submission reference has been made in case of Pradip Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111 which has been followed in the subsequent cases reported in Virendra Kumar Srivastava v. U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam (2005) 1 SCC 149 and the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Radhey Shyam Rai reported in (2009) 5 SCC 577 and contended that decision in the case of S. K. Banerjee v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 7997 (1) GLT 451 holding that the ARPS does not come within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is not a good law in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehrawardi and Ors. reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 and All India Sainik Schools Employees' Association v. Defence Minister and Ors. reported in1989 Suppl (1) SCC 205. On the other hand, the Apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212 has held that natural justice requires that even if provisions for communication of decision without assigning any cause based on Public Policy be there, nevertheless reasons for the decision must exist and be disclosed, else action of the State arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 10. Refuting the argument advanced by the counsel representing the petitioners, Mr. 10. Refuting the argument advanced by the counsel representing the petitioners, Mr. Shyam, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending inter alia that the school is under the full financial control, management and administrative control of the Managing Committee consisting of senior officers of Assam Rifles in their personal capacity and State Government Officers, the guardian representatives and the representatives chosen from the members of the teaching staff and there is no financial and administrative control by the Union of India or any other authorities as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is therefore not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Mr. Shyam has placed reliance upon the case of S. K. Banerjee (supra) and submits that the said decision still holds the field in absence of challenge of the same before the higher Court. 11. Considered the arguments advanced. Perused the records produced before the Court by Mr. Shyam. From the points of arguments advanced, it would be necessary to answer first as to whether a writ is maintainable against the ARPS, Laitkor, Shillong and whether it falls within the categories of other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In order to determine the questions raised, it would be appropriate to note that the petitioners were appointed on probation under a deed of service executed between the parties. Their probationary periods were not found satisfactory, thereby extended their probationary period and ultimately terminated the service with effect from 30.05.2009 vide communication dated 27.05.2009. The decision reported in Ajay Hasia (supra) is a case where the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar is one of the fifteen such colleges sponsored by Government of India, is established and its administration and management are carried out by a Society registered under the J & K Registration of Societies Act. The Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society shows that the composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government. The Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society shows that the composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government. The fund required for running the colleges are provided entirely by the Central Government and the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and even if any other fund is to be received by the society, it can be received only with the approval of the State and the Central Governments. The State Government and by reason of the provisions for approval, the Central Government also, have full control of the working of the society and society is merely a projection of the State and the Central Government and, the voice is that of the State and the Central Government and hands are also that of the State and the Central Government. The Central Government having its domain over the college, the Apex Court has held that a Regional Engineering College in the state of Jammu & Kashmir would come within the purview of Article 12of the Constitution of India. In the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra), the Apex Court has held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India requires reason based decision necessary in terms of professional engagements and audi alteram partem rule requires hearing and in that context the judgement is delivered. In Pradip Kumar Biswas (supra), as per majority view of the Apex Court the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India since the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by, or under the control of, the Government. Such control must be particular to that body and must be pervasive and if yes, then that body is a State. Such control must be particular to that body and must be pervasive and if yes, then that body is a State. The multiple test which is to be applied to ascertain the character of a body as falling within Article 12 or outside as laid down by the majority view in Pradip Kumar Biswas (supra) is to ascertain the nature of financial, functional and administrative control of the State over it and whether it is dominated by the State Government and the control can be said to be so deep and pervasive as described in the minority view in Pradip Kumar (supra) so as to satisfy the Court "of brooding presence of the Government" on the activities of the body or corporation. In the case of Virendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Apex Court has held that UP Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam is an instrumentality of the State and a writ would be amendable under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Radhe Shyam Rai (supra), the Apex Court has held that a writ by Ganna Kishan Sansthan whereby post of Computer Officer/Data Processing Officer were abolished would come within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India since the functions which are being performed by Sansthan were used to be performed by Government directly. 12. In the context of above references, the Court is to see whether the Assam Rifle Public School is an instrumentality of the state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As per statements made on oath in the counter filed by the respondents, the ARPS is a private institution, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and established with aim and objective, inter alia to promote education amongst the children of the Assam Rifles' Officers and others. The management of the school is fully under the control of the Managing Committee which is constituted in accordance with the provisions of the article of association of the society. Neither the Home Ministry, Union of India nor the Director of Assam Rifles have had any administrative or financial control over the management of the school. The management of the school is fully under the control of the Managing Committee which is constituted in accordance with the provisions of the article of association of the society. Neither the Home Ministry, Union of India nor the Director of Assam Rifles have had any administrative or financial control over the management of the school. The Governing Body of the School comprised of the Governor of Assam as Patron, Director General of Assam Rifles as Chairman, Deputy Director General of Assam Rifles as Vice Chairman, Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Meghalaya-Member, all Deputy Inspector Generals of Ranges - Member, the Principal, Assam Rifles Public School-Secretary. The Chairman may nominate any other members. The tenure normally should be two years which could be extended at the discretion of the Governing Body. The school also has a Managing Committee to control and oversee the matters concerning day to day management of the school. The Managing Committee consists of Senior Officers of Assam Rifles in their personal capacity and State Government Officers, the guardian representatives, and the representatives chosen from among the member of the teaching staff. 13. The correct position as pointed out by the Apex Court in order to decide whether a particular organization attracts Article 12 of the Constitution, the Court must have regard to various factors, such as, functional character being governmental in essence, plenary control residing in Government or its officers, financial resources and of the State being the chief funding source, prior history of the same activity having been carried on by Government and made over to the new body, the composition of the body being dominated by the Government representatives, the presence or absence of deep and pervasive control by the Government over the organization. The test cannot be fitted into a strait jacket formula. When the Court considers functional character, regard must be had to the fact that in a welfare State, Government control is pervasive and touches all aspects is of social existence and independent and autonomous institutions are, therefore, subject to a degree of State control. 14. In the instant case, the school is run by a society. The object of the society is to impart education to the children of Assam Rifles personnel though there are provisions for admitting students from outside. This is mainly not for general public. 14. In the instant case, the school is run by a society. The object of the society is to impart education to the children of Assam Rifles personnel though there are provisions for admitting students from outside. This is mainly not for general public. The boarding fee and tuition fee received from the students are major source of income. From the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the Government has any control whatsoever over the school. The cases referred by the counsel representing the petitioners would show that the Government has all pervasive control over the institutions which is not the case in hand. 15. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Assam Rifles Public School is not an instrumentality of the "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As the writ petitions are found to be not maintainable, I do not consider it necessary to decide the case on merit. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed