JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. The instant appeal arises from a judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Single Bench in WPA 16573 of 2019 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed as not maintainable.

2. Admittedly, the appellant was employed as an office assistant in W.W.A, Cossipore English School, the Respondent no. 2 herein, in the year 1992. Subsequently, the appellant was brought in a teaching faculty as a computer teacher and the service was terminated on October 29, 2018. The reason for termination was founded upon an allegation of committing a sexual harassment. The writ petition was filed challenging the said order of termination on the premise of violation of a principle of natural justice with the consequential relief of reinstatement in service and release of the arrear salary and all financial benefits attached to the said post.

3. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts, a preliminary objection was raised by the Respondent no. 2 that the same is not maintainable as the Respondent no. 2 being an unaided private school is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as the action was taken under the realm of a private law and there is a complete lack of public law element involved in it. In other words, it is sought to be contended that the employment of the appellant with the respondent no. 2 is governed by the contract between them and being an unaided private school, they do not come within the folds of “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

4. The Single Bench after considering the various judgments including St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors.  (2023) 4 SCC 498 held that the Respondent no. 2 cannot be regarded as an authority nor a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of maintainability.

5. The Counsel for the appellant assailed the said order and sought to contend that the Respondent no. 2 was discharging a public duties in imparting education to the children and, therefore, has an element of an authority within the four corners of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is vociferously submitted that it is not necessary that the writ is maintainable only against the State or its instrumentality but can also be maintained against the other authorities if they are discharging the public duties. It is further submitted that the Respondent no. 2 are governed by a statute and once they have violated the statutory provisions and discharging the public duties in imparting education to the children, the writ petition is maintainable. It is sought to be contended that the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008 was promulgated by the State Government for better protection of the right of teacher and non-teaching staffs of the school in the State which defines the “school” under Section 2(i) to mean a “school” as recognised by the State but does not include the Government school and further included the unaided school within its meaning. It is thus contended that the definition of a “school dispute” in Section 2(k) have taken within its folds all disputes including the service matters of a person in a school. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the moment the “school disputes” imbibed within itself the service matters of a person in school, the act of termination comes within the school dispute and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. Taking a clue from Section 12 of the Act of 2008 providing the Constitution of a Commission, it is submitted that so long the Commission is not constituted under the said Act, the remedy by way of a writ petition is maintainable and, therefore, the judgment of the Single Bench needs interference.

6. To buttress the aforesaid contention the learned Advocate for the appellant audaciously submits that the teacher in an unaided private school are not a workman as define