and usual allowances w.e.f. 07.12.2010. As per the said appointment letter, the petitioner was to be on probation for a period of one year, which could be extended further and his services could be terminated any time, during the period of probation. It is the case of the petitioner that vide Office Memorandum dated 23.11.2011, he was confirmed to the post of P.A. to Director w.e.f. 07.12.2011. With the issuance of the letter dated 05.11.2015, the Institute terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect enclosing therewith a cheque of even date for Rs.27,475/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Five only) towards one month's salary in lieu of the notice period. The petitioner assails the said termination letter on the premise that he has been working and rendering the services to the Institute with sincerity and hard work and his services were always appreciated and was also given due annual increments and therefore, the abrupt termination of his services without giving reasons or the requisite notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, was bad in law. As for the maintainability of the writ petition, according to him, the respondent no.1 was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the reply filed, the Institute, raising the question of maintainability of the instant writ petition states that the Institute was a private Institute, which was run and managed by a registered trust society and does not get any aid from the University Grants Commission or any other Government agency or organization and therefore, it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Amongst others, the Institute has taken a specific plea in the reply that the office memorandum dated 23.11.2011, which, according to the petitioner, confirmed him to the post of P.A. to the Director, was forged and fabricated
