Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Sushil Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai - the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saurabh, the learned Standing Counsel representing the opposite party no. 1 - the State of U.P., Sri Rohit Pandey - the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 - Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh and Sri. Diptiman Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 - Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of termination of his service as Assistant Workshop Superintendent, Department of Mechanical Engineering in Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad.
3. It has been pleaded in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Workshop Superintendent in the Department of Mechanical Engineering by means of an appointment order dated 23.08.2007. He worked on the aforesaid post till 30.06.2021, on which date he was removed from service by an oral order. The petitioner has stated in the Writ Petition that the institution has given three months salary to him amounting to Rs.1,23,88
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for private employment disputes lacking public law elements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to terminate services under Rule 15(ii) of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private unaided minority institution for service dis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as an employee of a school with a public element in imparting education, was entitled to avail the remedy under Article 226 of....
The court confirmed that contractual employment not involving State functionaries does not fall within the purview of Article 12, thus impacting the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 22....
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private employer for contractual termination unless it involves a public law element.
Termination by a private company without inquiry or hearing is not maintainable under Article 226 since the employment relationship is contractual, not public law.
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....
Point of law: Contractual Employee - Order of termination of a temporary employee or a probationer or even a tenure employee, simpliciter without casting any stigma may not be interfered with by cour....
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
