The Army Welfare Education Society is not a 'State' under Article 12, and employment disputes governed by private contracts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

LPA No. 258/2024

1. This intra-Court appeal by the appellants arises out of an order and judgment dated 22.10.2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ Court”] in WP(C) No. 533/2024 whereby the Writ Court has declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) does not qualify to be a “State” and that the relationship between the Society and its teachers constitutes a private contract. Consequently, in terms of the judgment impugned (supra), the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Aijaz Chowdhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, to assail the impugned judgment, passed by the Writ Court, we deem it appropriate to briefly notice the controversy which was raised in the writ petition filed before the Writ Court.

3. The appellants herein, who were the writ petitioners before the writ Court, came to be appointed as TGTs/PGTs in different subjects in the Army Public School, Udhampur pursuant to a selection process conducted by the respondents, in terms of the Advertisement Notification dated 16.03.2022. The appellants were placed on probation for a period of two years. However, their probation was neither extended, nor were they confirmed on the posts to which they stood appointed pursuant to the regular selection process. Resultantly, they were terminated from service. The respondents invoked Article 132(C) of the Red Book of the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) Rules and Regulations to discontinue the services of the appellants after 31.03.2024.

4.Feeling aggrieved, the appellants not only challenged their termination orders issued by the Army Public School, Udhampur on 16.02.2024, but they also called in question Articles 132(B) and 132(C) of the Red Book. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents, raising a preliminary objection to its maintainability under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was urged by the respondents that the Army Public Schools, including Army Public School, Udhampur, are run by the Army Welfare Education Society [“AWES”], which is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It was also contended before the writ Court that the service disputes between the Society and its employees fall within the realm of law and, therefore, the action of the Society complained of by the appellants is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

5. The writ Court, after considering the rival contentions, identified the following three issues for consideration:

(i) Does the Army Welfare Education Society qualify as a "State" as defined in Article 12, thereby allowing for a writ to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ?

(ii) Can a private contract between AWES and the Teachers be enforced by writ jurisdiction ?

(iii) Were the respondents justified in terminating the services of the petitioners given the unique facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the absence of any adverse findings against the petitioners, who had successfully completed their probation period in accordance with the AWES Rules.

6. The writ Court, after dealing with the aforesaid issues at considerable length and analyzing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties in light of the settled legal position, came to the conclusion that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of a service contract between AWES and the appellants was not maintainable. The writ Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition.

7. The impugned judgment is challenged by the appellants on the ground that the writ Court has failed to correctly appreciate the import of the judgment pas