GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. - (1.) At the threshold, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because admittedly petitioner is claiming his right on the ground that ICAR is a funding authority and under MOU, Krishi Vigyan Kendra was functioning as ; NGO, which is known as Gandhi Vidhya Mandir and petitioner is claiming his : right on the ground that appointment has been denied upon wrong premises, for which, he is required to take recourse of remedy available under the law and not before this Court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ICAR vide communication dated 21/23 October, 2008, 5th December, 2008 and 20th November, 2008 gave certain directions to the Gandhi Vidhya Mandir with regard to rectifying its mistake for appointment of the petitioner.
(3.) In the opinion of this Court, if any directions are given by the ICAR and flouted by the Gandhi Vidhya Mandir then petitioner is required to approach the ICAR. In this writ petition, no direction can be given to Gandhi Vidhya Mandir, which is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.;