S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.2.2003 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) passed by Prashashak/Mantri, Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Maghar (Sant Kabir Nagar) by which petitioner has been placed under suspension. When the matter was taken up at the admission stage, Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned advocate who represents respondent No. 1, U. P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 whose action is under challenge are not statutory authority and they are not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A short counter -affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
(2.) IN view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharma, learned advocate has addressed the Court on the question of maintainability of this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on the basis of the fact so stated in the writ petition that petitioner is Class III employee of the Board and at present he is serving in Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Maghar in the district Sant Kabir Nagar which is one of the unit affiliated to the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are discharging the public duties/ functions and, therefore, they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel has taken the Court to the various provisions of U. P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960, to submit that the Board being statutory authority, the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is liable to be screened by this Court. In support of the submission of maintainability of the writ petition learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given in case of Narendra Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. . Other decisions as are given in cases of K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. v. Sri Venkateshwara Hindi College of Engineering and Anr., : (1997) 3 SCC 571 ; Sri Ram Saran v. State of U. P. and Ors., and U. P. State Co -operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors. : (1999) 1 SCC 741:1998 (4) AWC 579 (SC).
(3.) IN response to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sharma learned Advocate submits that argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is employee of the Board is totally misconceived. Petitioner has never been appointed by the Board and he has been never in the service of the Board rather petitioner was appointed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who is society to which respondent No. 1 has only connection and concern as of a lender and borrower. Respondent No. 1 sanctions and provides loan to the society for carrying on village industries. It is pointed out that respondent No. 1 has nothing to do with the appointment, termination, terms of payment of salary and other conditions of service of the employees of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In view of the aforesaid, it is argued that submission of the counsel for the petitioner being on the wrong premises, that petitioner is employee of the Board has to be rejected. It is argued that in the similar set of fact writ petition filed by the employee of Gandhi Ashram has been dismissed being not maintainable by the Division Bench of this High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of Swami Nath Tewari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition No. 3116 of 1990, decided on 29.7.1992.;