SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The only ground urged by the appellants is that the Single Bench did not embark on any meaningful inquiry as to whether the first appellant was amenable to the writ jurisdiction before deciding the matter on merits.
(2.) It is evident from the order impugned dated November 25, 2016 that the question of maintainability was squarely raised and it was observed in course of the order that such issue "requires consideration".
(3.) The extent of consideration is evident from the immediate following paragraphs: "In Sushmita Basu (supra) a writ petition seeking mandamus directing a private education institute to implement the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission including its implementation with retrospective effect was found to be maintainable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the present case, the petitioner seeks to enforce a contract of employment against a Government aided Institute. Moreover, it has been judicially recognized that, a writ petition is maintainable for the purpose of enforcement of a contract where there is no dispute with regard to such contract, provided that the authority against whom the writ is filed is found to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 or a person clothed with the powers to discharge functions of the State. In the present case, the Institute is imparting education to the students. Imparting education is a State functions (sic) which the Institute is discharging (sic). In facilitating such discharge, the Government is also granting aid to the Institute. It can safely be said that it comes within the purview of Article 12. "In view of the discussion above, the issue of maintainability is answered by holding that the writ petition is maintainable.";