ORDER

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Priyanshi Garg, a contractual employee, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12.2.2024, passed by respondent No.4, the Principal, Army Public School, Mhow, District Indore (M.P.) whereby, the services of the petitioner who was posted as Primary Teacher has been terminated by invoking Clause 4 of the contract.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by respondents on ad hoc basis as Primary Teacher in the Army Public School on 15.9.2021, and subsequently she signed an agreement?? dated 3.6.2022 and she was offered the appointment for the post of Primary Teacher (PRT) for a period of 3 years, w.e.f., 24.6.2022 to 31.3.2025. Accordingly to the petitioner, she was diligently performing her duties as Primary Teacher, however, she sought permission for maternity leave benefit by sending her request to the respondent No.4 under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), and also sent an email on 3.2.2024 mentioning that she had earlier applied for the same but she was verbally informed by the Principal that due to insufficiency of funds available with the respondents, she has an option to go on leave without pay (LWP), however, as the petitioner was not inclined to accept the leave without pay, she sent the email on 3.2.2024 requesting for the benefit of the Act of 1961, however, instead of extending the aforesaid benefit, the respondents have served the impugned notice to the petitioner on 12.2.2024, which is two months prior notice for termination of her service, citing Clause 4 of the agreement, and being aggrieved of the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned notice has been issued in retaliation of the petitioner’s email dated 3.2.2024. It is also submitted that the petitioner was also compelled to send a copy of the email to the National Commission for Women because the verbal instructions made to the petitioner by respondent No.4. It is also submitted that the impugned notice is nothing but an arbitrary exercise by respondent No.4 of her powers to bypass the provision of the Act of 1961.

4. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that after the petition was filed, the respondents, in their reply have relied upon certain old complaints made against the petitioner by some parents of the students studying in the Army Public School and the last such complaint made against the petitioner was in the month of August 2023, however, the respondents have never issued any warning, although advisory was issued on 9.8.2023, but no further action has been taken against the petitioner since last around six months.

5. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this court to para No.8 of the Full Bench Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported as (1978) 1 SCC 405 to substantiate his submissions that in public orders, publicly made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be made arbitrarily. It is submitted that although the respondent School is an unaided School, still they were required to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1961 without any prejudice.

6. Reply to the aforesaid petition has also been filed by the respondents rebutting the averments made in the petition, and shri Saurabh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents has also drawn the attention of this Court to the complaints made against the petitioner by the parents of the students who were being taught by the petitioner as in the earlier complaint dated 18.8.2022, certain temperamental issue and discriminatory behaviour of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the School, and in another complaint dated 8.8.2023, the students were shifted to a different section bec