Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal upholding the decision of a learned single Judge* rejecting the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant was an employee of the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies (hereinafter referred to as ICPS for short) and in a disciplinary action he was dismissed from service by order date 17th Nov. 1982. When he assailed the order in a writ petition before the High Court, the question whether ICPS was 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution came for consideration as the major issue arising in the matter. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the employer was neither an agency nor an instrumentality of the Government and did not constitute 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12, and, therefore, was not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge was dismissed on 1st Nov. 1983.
(2.) In course of hearing of the appeal Dr. Anand Prakash appearing for ICPS fairly stated that whether the Institute be 'State' or not within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, the employer was prepared to give a fresh opportunity to the appellant to meet the charges so as to dispel from his mind the feeling that he has not been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Ordinarily, with that concession the impugned order entailing the dismissal of the employee and the judicial determination against the appellant should have been set aside and the matter should have gone before the enquiry officer for affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard against the charges. Dr. Anand Prakash, however, invited us to enter into the merits of the issue as to whether ICPS constitutes 'State' within the constitutional meaning of the term. The Union of India which appears before us through counsel also wanted that the question should be decided. Thereupon we suggested to the appellant who was till then appearing in person to get represented through counsel so that the matter could be appropriately argued on his behalf also. He has been rendered suitable assistance by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and Mr. P. P. Rao, Senior Counsel, has appeared on his behalf.
(3.) The main question for consideration now, therefore, is whether ICPS is 'State'. For appropriate consideration of this question it is necessary to look into the constitution of the body, the purpose for which it has been created, the manner of its functioning, including the mode of its funding and the broad features which have been found by this Court in several decisions to be relevant in the matter of determining a dispute of this type. Article 12 of the Constitution provides an inclusive definition of the term 'State' by saying:- "In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the State Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India." Obviously ICPS can become 'State' only if it is found to be an authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.;