JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Prakash Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the retirement notice dated 28th March, 2023 issued by the Manager, Jyoti Niketan School, Atlas Pokhra, Azamgarh, whereby petitioner has been directed to retire from service on 27.6.2023.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Jyoti Niketan School, Atlas Pokhra, Azamgarh is being run by a private society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is recognized by the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi.

4. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher by the Principal of Jyoti Niketan School vide appointment order dated 1.7.2000. Petitioner pursuant to her appointment order continued to work in the school and as per her date of birth she was to attain the age of 60 years on 27.6.2023, therefore the Manager of the school issued a letter to the petitioner on 28.3.2023 thereby petitioner was informed that she after attaining the age of superannuation will retire on 27.6.2023.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since the teachers working in the institutions of the State Government as well as teachers working in the schools of U.P. Basic Education Board are to retire at the end of academic session and further since academic session in the schools of the State Government starts from 1st of April and ends on 31st of March in the next year and since the petitioner’s date of retirement falls on 27.6.2023, therefore she is entitled to continue till 31st March, 2024.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 has vehemently argued that Jyoti Niketan School, Atlas Pokhra, Azamgarh is a school run by a private society and is recognized by the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi, therefore the rules and regulations of the State Government applicable over the schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board and schools run by the State Government are not applicable over the school of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out as to how the rules of the Government of U.P. applicable to the government schools and the schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board are applicable over the school of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has only submitted that the schools which are recognised by the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi are required to take “No objection certificate” from the State Government and therefore, all the rules and regulations applicable over the schools of the State Government are applicable over the school of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that merely because the State Government has given ‘No objection certificate’ for recognition of the school of the petitioner by the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi, the rules and regulations applicable over the schools of the State Government and the schools run by the U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj shall not apply over the school of the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that even otherwise the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargav and others, reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498 has categorically held that the service disputes of the employees working in the schools run by the private societies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relevant portions of the judgment rendered in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society (supra) are extracted as under:-

“2. In the present appeal, two pivotal issues fall for consideration of this Court:

2.1. (a) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable a