SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 100

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Mrs. Nimisha Gupta W/o Shri Hans Kumar Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5158, 5060, 5067, 5149, 5150, 5153, 5154, 5155, 5163, 5164, 5173, 5176, 5182, 5183, 5194, 5209, 5210, 5243 of 2021
Decided On : 15-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman with Mr. Keshav Parashar, Mr. Moin Khan and Mr. Ashish Kalera Mr. Sanjay Mehla with Ms. Sunita Mehla and Mr. Nagendra Sharma Mr. Dinesh Yadav with Mr. Ankit Kumar Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi Ms. Karishma Soni
For the Respondents: Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma Mr. Abhishek Sharma with Mr. Rohit Thakur

Army Public Schools, managed by a registered society, do not qualify as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, rendering writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 12 and 226 - Writ petitions regarding appointment of teachers in Army Public Schools - Petitioners’ appointments revoked due to lack of NCTE qualifications mandated by law - Challenge to maintainability of writ petitions based on educational institution status - Court held that Army Public Schools, run by a registered society, do not fall under the definition of "State" under Article 12 - Are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Paras 4, 5, 30, 34)

(B) Educational Qualifications - Requirement for holding positions in public schools - Court emphasized adherence to statutory qualifications as per NCTE guidelines for employment in teaching positions. (Paras 31, 34)

(C) Role of Educational Institutions - The court highlighted the distinction between private societies and government institutions, affirming that the public character of a school does not suffice for it to be classified as a "State" under Article 12. (Paras 16, 20, 30)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged their termination as Primary Teachers in Army Public Schools, stating their qualifications did not meet NCTE standards, leading to revocation of their services on 30.03.2021.

Findings of Court:
Court determined that since the Army Public Schools do not constitute a "State," the writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable.

Issues: Whether Army Public Schools are classified as "State" under Article 12 and if termination was lawful based on lack of required qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Court concluded that Army Public Schools, managed by a society, are not instruments of the State, thus, the writ petitions cannot be sustained under Article 226.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed as not maintainable.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions filed by teachers challenging termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. preliminary objection on maintainability raised by respondents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. petitioners argue for the public character of education provided. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. constitutional provisions for state definition under article 12. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. consideration of authority's status as 'state' under article 12. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. previous judgments determining the maintainability of writs. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
7. termination of petitioners based on possession of qualifications. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
8. dismissal of writ petitions as not maintainable. (Para 35 , 36)

Order :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. All these writ petitions were filed on the ground that petitioners are qualified for appointment as teacher in any of public school and pursuant to advt. issued by the Army Public School, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher, but during term of employment, the respondents have relieved and terminated the services of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners do not possess the qualification mandatorily required for appointment as PRT teacher in Army Public School. The petitioners have challenged the removal and termination by filing separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. These writ petitions are preferred by petitioners with common question of law, hence they are decided by a common order.

3. Prayer in each of the writ petition is reproduced as under:

“S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5158/2021:

i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5060/2021:

i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;

i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5067/2021:

1. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;

2. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months. bridge course in Elementary Education with all consequential benefits.

3. Any other Court order which this Hon'ble in the facts and deemed just and proper circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner.

4. by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the condition of probation in appointment order dated 24.4.2018 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be declared confirmed w.e.f. 24.4.2018 i.e. the date of her appointment on regular basis, alternatively probation extension order dated 18.3.2020 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared to be confirmed on the post of PRT with effect from 24.4.2019 on completion of 1 year as per applicable Rule 132 (b) of the Rules and Regulations;

5. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to file Circular dated 3.12.2018 and on perusal of the same, the Circular 3.12.2018 be quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner, or alternatively, Circular 3.12.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top