H.N. SARMA, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appealing for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

2. The petitioner, during the relevant time was serving as Junior Teacher in the Ram Krishna Mission School, Along in the West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The School authority alleging certain misconduct against the petitioner demoted him to the rank of Assistant Teacher by holding a departmental proceeding, which is the subject matter of challenge of this writ petition.

3. At the out set, a preliminary point has been raised by Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 about the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel, the R.K. Mission School, not being a 'State' or 'other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no writ lies against the said school. It is further submitted that the R.K. Mission School is neither a statutory body nor the State has got any pervasive control over the Mission in the matter of its management and it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. However, the impugned decision is an administrative one taken by the Management of the Mission for internal discipline amongst the teachers of the School, this petition is not maintainable.

4. Refuting the aforesaid submissions of the respondents, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although R.K. Mission is a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, it has all the criteria of a 'State' and at any rate it will fall under the category of other authorities' as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that R.K. Mission receipt of regular grant in aid from the Government by way of salary of the teachers and in its Governing Body, the representative of the Government is also there. However, the school is recognized by the Government and the Government has supervisory control over the education function rendered by the School. On such considerations, it is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that this writ petition is maintainable. Highlighting his submissions Mr. Tiwari has submitted that, regarding receipt of grant by the R.K. Mission from the Government is very well established from the minutes of the meeting held in the Office Chamber of the Minister Education, Science & Technology on 05.02.96, where in the said meeting was conducted under the Chairmanship of Minister of Education and Secretary as well as the Director of the Education Department were also present. In the said meeting and on perusal of the minutes of the said meeting as annexed as Annexure-P/10, in the affidavit-in-reply, it is clear that the School authority is getting regular grant from the Government. In the said meeting certain other vital points regarding funding of the school, enhancement of the grant from 18% to 25-30%, enhancement of annual contribution towards food of the hostel students of School, assurance of the Government to extend financial aid on pay and allowances of teachers and non teaching staff as per norms applicable to Govt. Schools, decision to provide extra lump sum 10% grant and other vital points regarding funding of the School was discussed, and certain vital decisions were taken pertaining to the management of the School. In terms of the aforesaid decision, the Secretary of Education Department, vide letter dated 25.03.96 forwarded a revised norm for submission of proposal for grant-in-aid to the Secretary of the Mission. That apart, the R.K. Mission is also getting grants from the Central Government and a letter from the Ministry of Welfare, Govt. of India, dated 29.12.97, annexed as Annexure-P/12, disclosed that the Govt. of India sanctioned a sum of Rs. 15,49,720/- as the first installment for R.K. Mission as per on going schemes. In the letter, at Para 11, it is provided that the Indian Audit Department has the right to excess to the books and accounts of the Mission for necessary inspection. It is also submitted that the R.K. Mission School is imparting education to the students of the State and education is being a State subject, the Mission is rendering the function of the State to that extent. The Governing Body of the School, who takes vital decisions regarding the Management of the School also, has the Government Officials as members, who take part in such decision in the matter of management of School. On overall consideration of the matter, as submitted by Mr. Tiwari, the R.K. Mission school falls within the category of other authorities' within the Article 12 of the Constitution of India if at all. It cannot be characterized as a State. In support of his arguments Mr. Tiwari has cited the following decisions reported in 2000 (3) GLT 441 : P. Chakraborty Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors., 2001 (1) GLT 117: N. J.Kr. Singh Vs. State of Manipur, 2001 (2) GLT 361, 2000 (1) GLT 470: P. N. Pandey & Ors. Vs. Union of India., 2004(1) GLT 228 : R.B. Devi Vs. Multipurpose Progressive Association & ors. (2005) 4 SCC 649: Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 111 : P. K. Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology., 1984 SC 1621 : Tikaram Vs. M. S. P. Mandal., AIR 1990 SC 423 : Francis John Vs. Director of Edu., 1997 (3) GLT 133 : Mool Chand & Co. & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. & (1993) 1 SCC 645.

Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents has also cited the following decisions in support of his arguments: (2002) 5 SCC 111 : Pradeep Kr. Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & (1989) 2 SCC 691: Andi Mukta Sadguru SMVSSJMS Trust Vs. V.R. Rudani.

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid point. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, the points for consideration in the light of the aforesaid submissions is whether the R.K. Mission school is a 'State' or 'other authorities', as mentioned in the article 12 & 226 of the constitution of india, so as to be amenable under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

In the case reported in 2000 (3) GLT 441 (Parimal Chakraborty Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.), dealing with the matter, whether a teacher of a private college receiving grants-in-aid from the State is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction for reinstatement to the post of Principal held with private educational institution, which is discharging the function of the State is rendering public duty and writ would lie against the institution. Referring to the cases reported in (1993) 1 SCC 645, AIR 1998 SC 295 : K. Krishnamacharyulu Vs. S. V.H. College of Engineering., AIR 1998 P &H 1 (FB) : Ravneet Kaur Vs. Christian Medical College, Eud Hiana, AIR 1981 SC 487 : (1981) 3 SCC 722, A. Hasia V. K. Mujib. AIR 2000 SCW 153 : Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Vs. R. Vali & Ors., in the aforesaid decision the High Court held at para 12 & 14 as follows:

"12. The teachers of educational institutions established under statutory provisions or under the control of State are entitled to vindicate their grievances availing remedies under the Article 226; therefore, there must exist justifiable reasons for refusal of the same to the teachers of private institutions. Non-availability of any legislative shield cannot be criterion for such refusal. It is for this reason the Supreme Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu and others (supra) while giving effect to an executive order held that the writ is maintainable. This decision of the Supreme Court has to be read in a larger amplitude.

14. To conclude, it may be stated that classification is permissible when two conditions are satisfied, that is - (i) it must be founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons, or things that are grouped together from others and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In the instant case, the teachers of the private institutions receiving grant from the State and affiliated to the University are discharging the same duties as that of the teachers of Govt. institutions or of the institutions which were created under the statute; and they all are discharging 'public duty' in aid of constitutional mandate. Merely because they are not employees of the State Govt. or of the institutions created under the statute, it would be an impermissible classification to place them as a different group to deny them the remedies under Article 226 for preservation and protection of their service rights. Any decision the way other is likely to have a deterrent effect on the objective sought to be achieved. The duty performed by two sets of teachers is in aid of constitutional mandate and, therefore, it would be unjust to classify the teachers of private institutions as a class distinct from the other." Again the reference is made to the case reported in 2001 (1) GLT 117 (N. Jogendra Kumar Singh) Vs. State of Manipur & Ors.

In the aforesaid decision the High Court held at paras 11 & 13 as follows:-

"11. From the available materials on record it has been revealed that the said school is a Govt. recognized and aided high School, giving instructions in secondary educational and preparing students for matriculation or HSLC examination and the Managing Committee of the said school is being entrusted with the management of the said aided school which has been recognized by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur for the purpose of admission to the privilege of the said Board and the same is governed by the Manipur Secondary Education Act, 1972 and Manipur School Education Act, 1979. The said school is an institutions receiving recurring grants-in-aid from the Govt. and as such, it is not a private institution. Apart from it, the Managing Committee of the said school is governed by the Manipur Aided Secondary School (Managing Committee) Rules, 1975 and the formation of the said Managing Committee has been approved by the Inspector of Schools concerned and that the respondent No. 5 is a body created/constituted by or under the said Manipur Secondary School Education Act, 1972 and the Manipur School Education Act, 1979 and the related rules thereunder and as such, it is not a private institution but an aided high School and the teachers of the said school impart education. Hence, in my considered view, there is an interest created by the Govt. of Manipur in the said school impart education which is a fundamental right of the citizens and the teachers of the said school who impart education get an element of public interest in the performance of their duties. Over and above this, the said school is required to act in a particular manner under the Manipur Secondary Education Act, 1972 and Manipur School Education Act, 1979 as the said school is governed by the said statute. Therefore), the submission of Mr. L. Nanda Kumar Singh, that the said school is a private school holds a little water as the said school is not managed by a private Managing Committee but the respondent No. 5 is functionary under the aforesaid Acts. 13. In the present case in hand, the petitioner being a teacher of such recognized school has also been assigned by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, with the duty for evaluation of answer scripts of HSLC examination every year in respect of civic paper as seen in the document marked Annexure A/10 to the rejoinder affidavit. There is also control of the State respondents over the management and policies of the respondent No. 5 inasmuch as, the Inspector of Schools concerned can dissolve the Managing Committee and constitute and ad-hoc Committee in its place for various reasons including violation of the orders of the Govt. by the Managing Committee. From these existing facts and circumstances, it can be easily arrived to the conclusion that though the financial contribution in the form of grant in aid to the said school is not conclusive for determination of respondent No. 5 as State under Article 12 of the Constitution, there is combination of State respondents aid coupled with material degree of control over the management and policies of the respondent No. 5 which has been rendering an important public service, the Respondent No. 5 is within the meaning of "authority under the Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and as such, the respondent No. 5 cannot defy those statutes mentioned above on the pretext that it is neither a State nor an "authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India."

Again in the case reported in 2001 (2) GLT 361 (Dipankar Roy Vs. Principal & Secretary, Public College of Commerce, Dimapur & Ors. " the High Court held at paras 12 & 13 as follows:

12. Coming to the instant case, it is amply clear that the College is imparting education to the students in general, and that it caters to the need of the public thereby element of public interest is involved in the performance of its duties towards the public at large.

13. The College is also receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. From the records it is also seen that the students studying in the College are receiving scholarship from the State Government for pursuing of their studies, thus public money is involved in the education process of children in the College. In the case reported in 2002(2) GLT 181 (Joytishmoy Bora Vs. Governing Body, Pragjyotish College, Guwahati-9 & Ors.) the High Court held at para 7 as follows: 7. Therefore, a public body discharging public function even though not a State within the meaning of Article 12 shall also be amenable to writ jurisdiction. The above decision was rendered in a case where denial of admission to an institution was challenged. But the underlying principles will govern the affairs of a public body which are relatable to public duties. Selection and appointment of teachers are certainly closely connected with public instructions and, therefore, a College, even though private, cannot be kept beyond the purview or writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

In the case reported in (1993) 1 SCC (Unni Krishnan J.P. and others -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.) the Apex Court held at paras 77, 79, 85, 87 and 195 as follows:

77. As a sequel to this, an important questionnaires: what is the nature of functions discharged by these institutions? They discharge a public duty. If a student desires to acquire a degree, for example, in medicine, he will have to route through a medical college. These medical colleges are the instrument to attain the qualification. If, therefore, what is discharged by the educational institution is a public duty, that requires duty to act fairly in such a case, it will be subject to Article 14.

78 The emphasis in this case is as to the nature of duty imposed on the body. It requires to be observed that the meaning of authority under Article 226 came to be laid down distinguishing the same term from Article 12. In spite of it, if the emphasis is on the nature of duty on the same principle it has to be held that these educational institutions discharge public duties. Irrespective of the educational institutions receiving aid it should be held that it is a public duty. The absence of aid does not detract from the nature of duty.

85. Therefore, as on today, it would be unrealistic and unwise to discourage private initiative in providing educational facilities, particularly for higher education. The private sector should be involved and indeed encouraged to augment the much needed resources in the field of education, thereby making as much progress as possible in achieving the constitutional goals in this respect. It could be concluded that the private colleges are the felt necessities of time. That does not mean one should tolerate the "so-called colleges" run in thatched huts with hardly any equipment, with no or improvised laboratories, scarce facility to learn in an unhealthy atmosphere, far from conducive to education. Such of them must be put down ruthlessly with an iron hand irrespective of who has started the institution or who desires to set up such an institution. They are poisonous weeds in the field of education. Those who venture are financial adventures without, morals or scruples. Their only claim is to make money, driving a hard bargain, exploiting eagerness to acquire a professional degree which would be a passport for employment in a country rampant with unemployment. They could be even called pirates in the high seas of education. 86. However, a word of caution requires to be uttered. Not all the private institutions belong to this category. There are institutions, which have attained great reputation by devotion and by nurturing high educational standards. They surpass the colleges run by the Government in many respects. They requires encouragement. From this point of view regulatory controls have to be continued and strengthened. The commercialization of education, the racketeering must be prevented. The State should strive its utmost in this direction. 195. Private educational institutions maybe aided as well as un-aided. Aid given by the Government may be cent percent or partial. So far as aided institutions are concerned, it is evident, they have to abide by all the rules and regulations as may be framed by the Government and/ or recognizing/affiliating authorities in the matter or recruitment of teachers and staff, their conditions of service, syllabus, standard of teaching and so on. In particular, in the matter of admission of students, they have to follow the rule of merit and merit alone-subject to any reservations made under Article 15. They shall not be entitled to charge any fees higher than what is charged in Governmental institutions for similar courses. These are and shall be understood to be the conditions of grant of aid. The reason is simple; public funds, when given as grant-and not as loan- carry the public character wherever they go; public funds cannot be donated for private purposes. The element of public character necessarily means a fair conduct in all respects consistent with the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 15. All the Governments and other authorities in charge of granting aid to educational institutions shall expressly provide for such conditions (among others), if not already provided, and shall ensure compliance with the same. Again, aid may take several forms. For example, a medical college does necessarily require a hospital. We are told that for a 100 seat medical college, there must be a fully equipped 700 bedded hospital. Then alone, the medical college can be allowed to function. A private Medical College may not have or may not establish a hospital of its own. It may request the Government and the Government any permit it to avail of the services of Government hospital for the purpose of the college free of charge. This would also be a form of aid and the conditions aforesaid have to be imposed may be with some relaxation in the matter of fees chargeable as imposed. The Government (Central and State) and all other authorities granting aid shall impose such conditions forthwith, if not already imposed. These conditions shall apply to existing as well as proposed private educational institutions. Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in a very recent case i.e. "Zee Telefilms Ltd and another vs. Union of India and others " reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649, at para 22,94 and 96 held as follows:-"22. Above is the ratio decided in and laid down by a Seven Judge Bench of this Court which is binding on this Bench. The facts of the case in hand will have to be tested on the touchstone of the parameters laid down in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case. Before doing so it would be worthwhile once again to recapitulate what are the guide lines laid down in Praddep Kumar Biswas case for a body to be a state under Article 12. They are:-

(1) Principles laid down in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must exphypothesi, be consider to be a State within the meaning of Article 12.

(2) The question is each case will have to be considered on the basis of facts available as to whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally, administratively dominated, by or under the control of the Government.

(3) Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive.

(4) Mere regulatory control whether under statute or otherwise would not serve to make a body -a State.

94. A school would be a State if it is granted financial aid. (See Jiby P. Chacko v. Principal, Medicity School of Nursing). 96. A school can be run by a private body without any State patronage. It is permissible in law because a citizen has fundamental right to do so as his occupation in terms of Article 19 (I) (g) and 26. But once a school receives State patronage, its activities would be State activities and thus would be subject to judicial review. Even otherwise it is subjected to certain restrictions as regards its right to spend its money out of the profit earned. (See T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka and Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka.)."

6. The undisputed facts, as stated herein above is that the R.K. Mission School is not a statutory body as it has not been framed under any Statute, rather it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and R.K. Mission, Along is a Branch of R.K. Mission and it is established with a view to impart quality education in the State. Thus, providing education is its sole moto.

7. The ratio of the cases referred to above, disclose that imparting education is a State function having public element in it. That apart, the school is receiving sizeable financial grants from the State Government and even the salary of the teachers are also being paid by the State. The Central Government fund is also offering to the school and the Audit Department of the Govt. of India has the authority to inspect the accounts of the R.K. Mission, so far it relates to the grant provided by the Central Government.

8. Applying the ratio of the cases, referred to above in the facts of the present case, I hold that the R.K. Mission falls within the category of 'other authorities' under Article 12 and 226 of the Constitution and it is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Thus the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Hussain is overruled.

9. So far it relates to the merit of the case, it has been submitted by Mr. Tiwari that although the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of demotion to the Rank of Assistant Teacher from Junior Teacher by holding a departmental inquiry on the ground of commission of misconduct, in fact there is no misconduct on the part of the petitioner and the alleged overt act on the part of the petitioner cannot be attributed to as misconduct. The allegations against the petitioner is that he gave a counter note in the notice by which the secretary of the School asked to meet all the regular teachers of the School on 17.05.03 at 3 P.M. served by putting a note there in that, there is no agenda, which goes to show that, he has virtually challenged the authority of the Secretary. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice vide No. RKM/ALG/C-S.25/S-023, dated 21.05.03. The petitioner in reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, replied that the allegation of misconduct which had been brought against him is misconceived, and by virtue of such reply, the petitioner in fact has not stated anything whether he committed the alleged act or not, and by non-denial of the specific charge, made against him it might be treated as an admission on the part of the petitioner.

10. The word "misconduct" has been defined under Clause 31 of the relevant Service Rules of the School. The said definition of misconduct under Clause 31 is an inclusive one and not exhaustive. On perusal of the instances of misconduct as provided in Clause 31 and over all consideration of the matter, I do not consider that the act of omission and commission attributed to the petitioner falls within the category of misconduct. The petitioner is serving as teacher in a school run and manage by an organization which is known for its discipline and principles. In fact strict discipline of the R.K. Mission Schools is its basic ideal and all concerned in the organization more particularly the teacher, who act as guiding personalities for the students are expected to follow strict discipline in all matters, otherwise the very basic characteristics of the organization may be jeopardized by such internal indiscipline. The petitioner did not reply to show cause notice, in respect of which the authority conducted the inquiry in terms of its rules. The rule of a particular organization of Department which is in force is only applicable in the matter of such disciplinary proceeding in respect of a organization or such department.

11. Benefits of observations or findings on the basis of interpretation of other rules, will not be available to the petitioner and it is the own rule of R.K. Mission School that will be applicable in the instant case. Following such rules, as applicable to the petitioner, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment and I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the process of inflicting the punishment. No violation of the provisions of any of the provision of the Rules or Natural Justice could also been shown in the instant case. As such the scope of judicial review in such matter is that limited. Regarding limits of judicial review vis-a-vis the powers of the High Court under Article 226 exercising writ jurisdiction, we may recall the decision rendered by the Apex Court reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583 (Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and Ors.) As para 17 of the said decision, the Apex Court held as follows:

"17. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority."

12. Although Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel tried to impress upon me that there is no adequate and reliable evidence or materials on record justifying the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, there is little scope for the writ court to consider and reassess the materials on record in such cases.

13. It is not the function of the writ court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings. Nor the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the writ court. This view has been expressed by the Apex Court in the Case of R.S. Sdini vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 90.

14. Although, the petitioner also faintly raised a grievance regarding non supply of the enquiry report, the petitioner could not show any prejudice caused to him thereby. Mere technical violation of this procedure will not hold good provided the petitioner cannot show and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that substantial prejudice was caused to him thereby and the petitioner not being able to satisfy on this count, the contention cannot be upheld. In fact, in the instant case the petitioner not denying the charge of misconduct in his written statement virtually admitted the same.

15. In view of the above, discussion, I do not find that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of the power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

16. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed, making no order as to costs.