Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1692 (GUJ)

J. M. Desai (Retd. ) v. Director, Cept.

2017-09-26

AKIL KURESHI, BIREN VAISHNAV

body2017
ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. On 12.09.2017, we had heard the parties on the question of maintainability of the writ petition of the present appellant in the context of CEPT being a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and reserved it for pronouncement on such issue for today. Today, by separate detailed order, we had inter alia observed as under: “15. We may add a word of caution. It is in the context of the facts of the present case, in absence of sufficient material on record that we are unable to hold that CEPT is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The question therefore, that CEPT is or is not a “State” can be answered authoritatively only in an appropriate case where full material is brought on record. For the limited purpose of this petition, we do not entertain the same for the failure of the petitioner to bring necessary material to declare that CEPT is a “State”. We hold so because except for asserting deep and pervasive control of the State through pleadings and oral submissions, no supporting material to substantiate such assertion is on record. 16. Therefore in a given case, henceforth, if a petitioner, makes out a case, based on sufficient material to persuade the Court to hold that CEPT is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nothing would prevent the Court from examining the issue of such a claim on merits. 22. According to the appellant - original petitioner, CEPT is an Educational Institution imparting education in the field of Technical Education. It therefore performs public functions namely that it is engaged in imparting technical education for higher learning. Moreover, as various government projects are entrusted to CEPT and constituent schools the duties are public in nature and hence even if we were to hold that it is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the Institution would be amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. Even if we find that CEPT was discharging important public function or public duty, writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable in connection with the discharge of such public function or public duty by such institution. 23. Even if we find that CEPT was discharging important public function or public duty, writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable in connection with the discharge of such public function or public duty by such institution. Employment and service conditions of an employee would not fall in such category.” 2. In the result, Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.