JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. The present appeal arises from an order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the Single Bench in WPA 9402 of 2020 negetivating the claim of the appellant that the writ petition is not maintainable as the enforceability is sought to the private contracts and further directions were passed for production of the documents and refusal to extend the time for filing the affidavits.

2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent No.1 against the Central Board of Secondary Education as well as the appellants assailing the action of the appellants for reduction of the salary to the extent of 40 per cent and the complete stoppage of the payment of salary since July, 2020 without any Rules to have been followed.

3. The respondent No.1 herein was appointed to the post of English teacher in Narayana School, Barasat, the appellant No.1 herein, with effect from March 07, 2017. The employment contract was handed over to the respondent No.1 and was duly executed though it is stated that it contains certain blank informations therein. Subsequently, grievance was raised over the poor pay structure of the teachers and the lack of basic securities relating to their service. Several representations were made by the teachers of the said school but ultimately, the said appellant No.1 unilaterally reduced the salary to the extent of 40 per cent without prior notice or a consent taken from a respective teacher. The representations were made when the said appellant No.1 decided to stop the salary of the respondent No.1 and thereafter, the writ petition was filed alleging that the appellant No.1 being the affiliated school with the Central Board of Secondary Education discharges the public functions and are bound by the bye-laws of affiliation which is a statutory document.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed at a fixed remuneration indicating the probation period to be of one year from the date of the joining. It is also not in dispute that despite the expiration of the probation period, the petitioner continued to render services and the document annexed in the instant appeal would reveal that the salary slip was issued by the appellant No.1 till February, 2020. The appellant No.1 took a preliminary objection that the writ petition for enforcement of the private contract is not maintainable against the said appellants and the respondent No.1 has volunteered not to join the said school since last several months. However, the Division Bench set aside the earlier order of the Single Bench and directed the respondent No.1 to join and the remitted the matter to the Single Bench to decide the same.

5. By the impugned order, the Single Bench recorded the event happened before it when the school authority submitted that despite the order, the respondent No.1 did not join the school and further raised a plea of maintainability of the writ petition. While upholding the maintainability point in favour of the respondent No.1, the Single Bench directed the appellants to produce the biometric device before the Court to ascertain whether the respondent No.1, in fact, went to join school or not.

6. In our opinion, the second point relating to joining or non-joining of the respondent No.1 takes a back seat for the simple reason that the moment it is found that the writ petition is not maintainable, the said question would be mere academic. Even the counsel appearing for the respective parties have restricted their arguments on the maintainability of the writ petition and therefore, we feel that it would be an ardent duty to decide the said point first.

7. Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Single Bench has misinterpreted the judgment of Ramakrishna Mission and Another vs. Kago Kunya and Others, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 303 and culled out certain portions therefrom without venturing to go into the ultimate findings made therein in upholding the maintainability of the writ petiti