1994 Supreme(All) 692

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.A.Sharma
RAJNI SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided On : 19 October 1994
C. M. W. P. No. 14386 of 1988

The conditions of service of an employee governed by non-statutory Rules and Regulations of a Society, which is not a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

WRIT PETITION - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - ARMY SCHOOL TEACHER - LEGALITY - DAMAGES - JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 - ARTICLE 12 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - BYE-LAWS OF ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a teacher in an Army School managed by the Army Welfare Education Society (Society), challenged the termination of her service. The Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act with the aim of providing educational facilities to children of army personnel. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the school in 1987 and was confirmed in 1989. Her services were terminated in 1992 due to the abolition of nursery and K.G. sections of the school.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Society and the school run by it were "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and were amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. The court also held that the petitioner was a primary teacher and not a K.G./nursery teacher, and therefore, her services could not have been terminated on the abolition of those classes. However, the court held that it could not direct the reinstatement of the petitioner as her conditions of service were governed by non-statutory Rules and Regulations of the Society, which were not enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the Society and the school run by it were "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioner was a primary teacher or a K.G./nursery teacher? 3. Whether the petitioner's services could have been terminated on the abolition of nursery and K.G. sections of the school? 4. Whether the court could direct the reinstatement of the petitioner?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Society and the school run by it were "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution based on the following factors: - The Society was registered with the object of running schools for providing educational facilities at Military Stations to meet the needs of the children of the army personnel. - The overall control of the Society and the school run by it vested in the Board of Governors and the Executive Committee, consisting of army officials. - The School Managing Committee also consisted of army officials. - The administrative control of the Schools vested in the governmental authorities. - The Society and its Schools were financed by Welfare funds of the Adjutant Generals Branch Army Headquarters. - The management of the School was also entitled to collect the fee and the donations, but this did not change the character of the Society or the School run by it. - Both administrative and financial control of the Army over the Society and the School was almost total. - The Society satisfied the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalik Mujtb Suhravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Air Port Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628, for determining as to whether it is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court held that the petitioner was a primary teacher based on the following factors: - The petitioner's appointment letter mentioned that she was appointed as a teacher in the Army School without any mention of being a primary or K.G./nursery teacher. - The petitioner had been teaching classes I and II in the school. - The petitioner had been issued a certificate by the Principal of the School certifying that she was a primary teacher in the school since 1987. - The respondents had admitted in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner was teaching Classes I and II in the school in the past. 3. The court held that the petitioner's services could not have been terminated on the abolition of nursery and K.G. sections of the school because she was a primary teacher. 4. The court held that it could not direct the reinstatement of the petitioner because her conditions of service were governed by non-statutory Rules and Regulations of the Society, which were not enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court declared the impugned order of termination of service as illegal but refused to grant the relief of reinstatement. Instead, the court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the equivalent of two years' salary as damages within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.