2025:UHC:2939-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB No.61 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sheetal Kharkwal, learned counsel for respondents. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Birla Institute of Applied Sciences, Bhimtal, Nainital in the year 2001. He is challenging order order dated 23.12.2016 passed by Deputy Registrar of the Institute whereby he was informed that he will retire from service on 31.12.2016, upon attaining age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Petitioner has challenged said order by contending that as per AICTE norms, age of superannuation of teachers of Engineering Colleges is 65 years, therefore, he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 65 years. 4. The stand taken by respondents/Institute is that AICTE norms relied by petitioner are not adopted by State of Uttarakhand, thus are not applicable. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondents that Birla Institute of Applied Sciences, Bhimtal, is a private body, which is not receiving any financial aid from the State or Central 2025:UHC:2939-DB Government nor the Government is exercising administrative or financial control over the affairs of the Institute. He thus submits that the institute do not qualify to be State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, writ petition would not be maintainable. 5. Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the contention that Birla Institute of Applied Sciences, Bhimtal is not receiving any aid from State/Central Government or any other Government agency. He also concedes that State or Central Government do not have direct administrative control over the affairs of the institute. 6. In such view of matter, objection raised by Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel, regarding maintainability of writ petition, is sustained. Since the institute does not qualify to be State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, writ petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 23.04.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.04.24 18:10:56 +05'30'