IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
WRIT - A No. 29911 of 2012
Decided On : 28-01-2020
Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 311 – Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Challenging notice/orders passed by respondent no.5 – Seeking mandatory injunction to continue in employment of private employer which is impermissible in view of law settled that contract of personal service cannot be enforced – Held, In view of our finding that Executive Committee of college in instant case was not statutory body – Present case does not fall within any of excepted categories mentioned above – Hence prima facie plaintiff/respondent not entitled to any declaration or injunction – Counsel for respondent however, placed great reliance on the decision of this Court in Sirsi Municipality case in order to contend that this decision had included within the fold of its exceptions a fourth category, namely, an institution which even though was a non-statutory body but was local or a public authority – Petition dismissed. (Paras 17, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Challenging notice/orders passed by respondent no.5 – Order notices that petitioners had failed to appear in screening test organized by institution to assess teaching ability and that they had failed to participate in such test previously also – An inference, therefore, has been drawn that petitioners have failed to provide qualitative teaching in the institution and by giving them a month's salary their services have been terminated. These orders have been passed by the Commandant, 12th Battalion, PAC, Fatehpur in his capacity as an office bearer of the Society running the educational institution in question – Seeking mandatory injunction to continue in employment of private employer which is impermissible in view of law settled that contract of personal service cannot be enforced.
Findings of the court:
In view of our finding that Executive Committee of college in instant case was not statutory body – Present case does not fall within any of excepted categories mentioned above – Hence prima facie plaintiff/respondent not entitled to any declaration or injunction – Counsel for respondent however, placed great reliance on the decision of this Court in Sirsi Municipality case in order to contend that this decision had included within the fold of its exceptions a fourth category, namely, an institution which even though was a non-statutory body but was local or a public authority.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioners, who are four in number, have filed the present writ petition challenging notice/orders dated 27.3.2012 and 31.3.2012, passed by respondent no.5, which are contained in Annexure-11 & 13 to 16 to the writ petition. The order dated 31.3.2012 notices that the petitioners had failed to appear in the screening test organized by the institution to assess the teaching ability and that they had failed to participate in such test previously also. An inference, therefore, has been drawn that petitioners have failed to provide qualitative teaching in the institution and by giving them a month's salary their services have been terminated. These orders have been passed by the Commandant, 12th Battalion, PAC, Fatehpur in his capacity as an office bearer of the Society running the educational institution in question.
2. The orders are assailed primarily on the ground that principles of natural justice have been breached inasmuch as no notice or opportunity of any kind was given to the petitioners before terminating their services. It is also urged that the petitioners were selected after undergoing a fair and transparent process, long back, and therefore, they cannot be compelled to appear in the screening test for which no provision otherwise exists in the rules of the Society that governs the institution. It is also urged that petitioners' act of not participating in the screening test cannot be construed as an act of misconduct, nor would it justify the order of termination against petitioners. The petitioners further claim that they were provided pay scale of Rs.1100-1550 vide letter dated 13.4.2000 and have been denied benefit of pay revision consequent upon introduction of Sixth Pay Commission Report.
3. The petition is opposed by the institution on the ground that a writ would not lie against it, which is purely a private body and is neither receiving any aid nor is regulated by any statutory provisions. It is sought to be contended that the police personnel for the welfare of their children have formed a Society known as Uttar Pradesh Police Shiksha Samiti, which is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The payment of salary to the employees/teachers is released from the funds generated by way of contribution made by the police personnel whose children are studying in the institution and/or from the fee collected from students and that no budgetary support or aid of any kind is provided by the State.
4. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in which it is asserted that merely because officials of the Police Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh are members of the Society, it would not change the nature of the Society itself, which is governed by its own bye-laws. The rules of the Society as also its registration etc. have been annexed alongwith the supplementary counter affidavit. Clause 11 of the bye-laws of Society provides that financial resources for the institution would be arranged from the fee received from the students or from the contributions made by the members. A sum of Rs.10 is contributed by each officer/employee posted in the Battalion and a separate fund in the name of PAC Shiksha Nidhi, 12th Battalion, Fatehpur is created. A member also contributes to the funds by voluntary contributions/donations etc. In para 2 of the supplementary counter affidavit it is asserted that the institution is purely a private unaided educational institution which is not receiving any grant-in-aid from the State and is not subject to any statutory regulations or control. A letter of the Central Board of Secondary Education dated 10.7.2012 addressed to the Principal, Police Modern School, 12th Battalion, Fatehpur is also annexed, as per which approval of middle class syllabus (I-VIII) has been provisionally approved for a period of three years i.e. 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2015. The letter of CBSE also provides that the school shall appoint only qualified and eligible staff as per the quali
Ajay Hasia and others vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others
Aley Ahmad Abidi v. District Inspector of Schools
Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani
Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College vs. Lakshmi Narain and others
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas
K. K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and others
K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engg.
K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
M/s Zee Telefilms Limited and another vs. Union of India and others
Ms. Geeta Pushp v. Union of India and others
Pradeep Kumar Biswas and others vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others
Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Imanual
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.