Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(HP) 1334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Deepak Gupta, Judge.
Santosh Kumari - Petitioner
Versus.
State of H.P. and others - Respondents.
CWP No. 733 of 2007
Decided on : 15.3.2011.

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioner:Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G.
For the Respondent No.4.:Mr. R.S.Kanwar, Advocate.

A writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the Parents Teachers Association as it is not considered a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
Writ Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability of writ against Parents Teachers Association
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's appointment and termination were by the Parents Teachers Association (PTA), and she was not in receipt of any salary pursuant to grant-in-aid by the State Government, making her an employee of the PTA.
Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the petition on the ground that no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the Parents Teachers Association, as the PTA is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Maintainability of writ under Article 226 against Parents Teachers Association
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no writ would lie against the PTA as it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected on the ground that no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the Parents Teachers Association.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. This petition has to be rejected on the short ground that no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the Parents Teachers Association.

2. Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed by the Parents Teachers Association (PTA) and her services have also been terminated by the PTA. The petitioner was never in receipt of any salary pursuant to grant-in-aid by the State Government and therefore, she was an employee of the PTA. The PTA is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ would lie against the PTA. Therefore, this petition is rejected on this ground only. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner can avail of any other remedy available to her. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(HP) 1334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLADeepak Gupta, Judge. Santosh Kumari - Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others - Respondents. CWP No. 733 of 2007 Decided on : 15.3.2011.

A writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the Parents Teachers Association as it is not considered a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Deepak Gupta, Judge.
Santosh Kumari - Petitioner
Versus.
State of H.P. and others - Respondents.
CWP No. 733 of 2007
Decided on : 15.3.2011.