Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju, J.
SUDESH MUKUL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 31379 Of 1996
Decided On : 11/04/1996
Retirement Age - Minority Institution - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the retirement age of the petitioner, holding that the bye-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education did not have statutory force, and the institution being a minority institution was protected by Article 30 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed she should have been retired at the age of 60 years but was retired at 58 years. The court found the writ petition not maintainable due to the institution being a minority institution and an un-aided private institution.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of the retirement age, minority institution status, and maintainability of the petition.
Issues: Retirement age dispute, maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The bye-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education did not have statutory force, and the institution being a minority institution was protected by Article 30 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) HEARD Dr. R. G. Padia for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Mukerjee for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that she has been retired of the age of 58 years while she claims that she should have been retired at the age of 60 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the bye-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education which he has quoted in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. In my opinion, these bye-laws can not be said to have statutary force. The condition of employment of the Our Lady Fatima Higher Secondary School, Aligarh, has been Annexed as C. A.-1 to the counter-affidavit and it has been mentioned therein that the retirement age is 58 years.
( 3 ) MOREOVER, I am the opinion, that this writ petition is not maintainable for two reasons (1) it is minority institution and hence protected by Article 30 of the Constitution vide Saint Joseph higher Secondary School v. R. S. Sharma, AIR 1976 All 390 (2) it is an un-aided private institution and hence no writ petition is maintainable.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Arvind Kumar sharma v. Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi and Anr. , 1996 (2) UPLBEC, 1337. This decision does not relate to a minority institution and hence is distinguishable. Moreover the decision of the Division Bench in Saint Josephs case (supra) has not been considered by the learned single judge, and hence this decision cannot prevail over the Division bench ruling.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Central board of Secondary Education v. Ms. Vineeta Mahajan and Anr. , 1993 (22) ALR 532. A perusal of this decision does not show whether it relates to minority institution. The question about the maintainability the writ petition was also not considered and hence this decision is also distinguishable.
( 6 ) FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed.
.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
