The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a public law element in the termination of employment renders a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not maintainable against a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral) - The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-18) whereby her services have been terminated.

2. Counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection of maintainability. He submits that respondent No.2 is a society registered under Society Registration Act, 1860. The respondent No.2 does not fall within definition of State or its Instrumentality as contemplated under Article 12 of Constitution of India. The respondent-Society is neither getting financial aid from the State nor directly or indirectly controlled or managed by the Government. A Division Bench of this Court in Rajni Jaiswalvs.SchoolManaging Committee,Army School,Ferozepur Cantt and another, 2007 SCC Online P&H 1472 and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shaheeda Begum vs Prinipal Army SchoolSecunderabandand another, 2005 SCC OnLine AP 706 have held that Army Public School run by Army Welfare Society are not instrumentality of State in terms of Article 12 of Constitution of India, thus, writ petition is not maintainable. He further relies upon a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others vs. Lakshmi Narain and others, (1976)2 SCC 58.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent is discharging public function i.e. imparting education, thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Though, the respondent is neither getting financial aid from the State nor controlled/managed by State still it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relies upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab and others, 2012 (12) SCC 331, Madras High Court in Mrs. Revathi vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, Writ Petition No.1422 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2023, this High Court in Surinder Singh and others vs. Union of India and others, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 14737 and Delhi High Court in Army Welfare Education Society and anr. vs. Manju Nautiyal and anr., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13072.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in Rajni Jaiswal's case (supra) noticing judgment of a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Asha Khosa vs. Chairman Army Public School in W.P. (Service) No.1415 of 1996, decided on 17.02.1997 has held that writ petition is not maintainable against Army Public School. The relevant extracts of the order read as :

3. In support of the aforementioned contention, learned counsel for the respondent has cited a Division Bench judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Asha Khosa v. Chairman Army Public School in W.P. (Service) No. 1415 of 1996 decided on 17.2.1997. The issue has been decided that the Army Welfare Education Society running the Army School is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Against the aforementioned view of the Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Special Leave Petition No. 6482(c) of 1997 was filed and the same has been dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 31.3.1997 (R-2). The Division Bench of this Court has also followed the aforementioned view in the case of Upma Kalia v. Army Public School, Jalandhar, (CWP No. 15202 of 2002) decided on 26.8.2003 and in the case of Vinod Kumar v. Ministry of Defence, (CWP No. 17615 of 2003) decided on 18.11.2004.

4. In view of the above, we dismiss the writ petition on account of non-maintainability. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of any other remedy in accordance with law, for the same cause of action, if so advised.

5. Petition dismissed

6. A three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narain s case (supra) has drawn distinction between an entity created by statute and an entity governed by provisions of the statute. The Court has held that a socie