Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Ms Tanu Jetly – Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman/Secretary and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 8981 of 2024
Decided On : 02-08-2024
Writ Petition - Service Regularization - Article 12, Article 226, Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava - The court discussed the maintainability of writ petitions against private educational institutions under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing that such institutions, while performing public duties, do not transform employment relationships into public law matters unless statutory provisions govern them. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim for regularization of her service was based on a private contract, thus not amenable to judicial review under Article 226.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a P.R.T. teacher at Army Public School, Bareilly, sought to continue her service and regularize her position after her contract was set to expire. She claimed long-standing experience and referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support her case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not signed the writ petition personally, which violated procedural rules. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's previous rulings clarified that the Army Welfare Education Society operates as a private entity, and employment disputes do not fall under public law, rendering the writ petition non-maintainable.
Issues: Whether the writ petition against the Army Welfare Education Society is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of her service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that employment relationships in private educational institutions, even if they perform public duties, are governed by private contracts unless statutory provisions apply. The absence of a public law element in the petitioner's claim meant that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage due to its non-maintainability.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri. Santosh Kumar Giri Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the petitioner is working as a P.R.T. teacher in Army Public School, Bareilly Cantt., Bareilly and she is seeking a direction for continuance her service as such and for regularization her services.
2. It has been pleaded in the writ Petition that the petitioner was appointed on the post of P.R.T. teacher in Army Public School, Bareilly Cantt., Bareilly on contractual basis on 19.08.2010/18.07.2010 initially for a period of two years. On 16.07.2012, the petitioner was again appointed for a period of three years from 26.07.2012 to 25.07.2015. On 11.08.2015, she was appointed afresh for a period of three years. Another contract of service was executed on 14.08.2018 for three years and thereafter another contract of service was executed on 20.07.2018 for the period up to 19.07.2021.
3. Lastly, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 27.09.2021 appointing her for a fixed tenure from 04.10.2021 to 31.03.2024. On 08.01.2024, the petitioner was sent an intimated that her service contract will expire on 31.03.2024 and she can appear for fresh selection. The petitioner had participated in the fresh selection process and a letter dated 18.03.2024 issued by the Principal of the School calling the petitioner for interview, has been annexed with the Writ Petition. It appears that the petitioner remained unsuccessful in selection and thereafter she has filed the Writ Petition seeking continuance and regularization of her service after termination thereof.
4. It has been pleaded that Army Public School is governed by Army Welfare Educational Society, New Delhi, Indian Army, Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The aforesaid pleading is incorrect as in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 SCC Online SC 1683 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Army Welfare Educational Society is a purely unaided private society established for the purpose of imparting education to the children of the army personnel including the widows and ex-servicemen.
5. Para 17 of the Writ Petition contains the following pleadings:
A true copy of the judgment dated : 26.09.2023 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-14 to this writ petition.”
6. As per the pleadings made in other paragraphs of the Writ Petition, the petitioner was initially appointed on 19.08.2010/18.07.2010 and she has worked for a total of 14 years under five different contract of service and the period of her last contract of service expired on 31.03.2024. The averment made in Para 17 of the Writ petition that the petitioner has long standing teaching and working experience of 25 years as a P.R.T. Teacher in Army Public School, Bareilly Cantonment, District Bareilly, is false on the face of the record.
7. The entire Writ Petition has been signed by Shammi Kumar, the husband of the petitioner, who has filed his affidavit in support of the Writ Petition.
8. The procedure to be followed for filing of cases in this High Court is provided in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Chapter I whereof deals with Preliminary matters. Rule 7 of Chapter I of the Allahabad High Court Rules provides that:
9. The petitioner has not signed the Writ Petition to take personal responsibility of the fals
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private educational institution for employment disputes unless statutory provisions govern the employment relationship, as such matters....
The judgment established that a writ petition for enforcement of a contract of service is not maintainable if the services are not controlled or regulated under any statute.
Employees of private educational institutions cannot invoke Article 226 for service disputes unless governed by statutory provisions, as established in St. Mary’s Education Society case.
Point of Law : High Court cannot be sustained on the proposition that the writ petition would not maintainable merely because the respondent institution is a purely unaided private educational instit....
Army Public Schools, managed by a registered society, do not qualify as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, rendering writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable.
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 no....
The Army Welfare Education Society is not a 'State' under Article 12, and employment disputes governed by private contracts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Army Welfare Education Society is not a 'State' under Article 12, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to private employment disputes.
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
