Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Tanu Jetly – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman/Secretary – Respondent
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
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
