21.05.2025 Sl No.12 Court No.8 (SKG)

FMA 1215 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 Sharmila Sen -vs-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Riva Dutta, Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee, …for the Appellant.

Mr. Ranjan Saha, Mr. Md. Ziaur Rahaman, ….for the State Respondents Mr. Debdatta Sen, Sr. Avd., Mrs. Suchismita Ghosh Chatterjee, Mr. Malay Kumar Seal, … for the Respondent no. 8 and 9

1. The preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ was taken at the threshold by the learned Counsel for the private respondents.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that a sham enquiry proceeding was initiated and she was compelled to resign from the school. Intervention of the Directorate of School Education was necessitated by reason of such illegal act on the part of the G.D Birla Centre for Education in which she was working as an English Teacher.

3. It appears that the allegation against the school authority was considered by the Deputy Director of School Education and in the communication dated 31st July, 2012 from the Deputy Director of School Education (A.I.S) W.B. the enquiry report reflects the following observations:

“1. Miss Sharmila Sen submitted resignation letter dt.18.8:08.

2. On 18.8.2008 such resignation letter was accepted on behalf of the school.

3. On or about 26.8.08, the school management intimated Miss Sen as regards settlement of her dues amounting to Rs.65,181/-, Rs.4,01,596/- and Rs.90,681/-.

4. Miss Sharmila Sen duly acknowledged receipt of such amount and gave a declaration to the school that she has no claim whatsoever nature on any account against the school.

5. The enquiry team does not find any proof depending upon which a conclusion can be drawn that Ms. Sharmila Sen had tendered her resignation on 18.8.2008 under compulsion. Rather evidences & reasoning show contrary to that possibility wherein it may be counted as voluntary resignation.

4. The observation of the Deputy Director of School Education was placed before the Directorate of School Education Anglo Indian Schools for consideration.

5. In view of the fact that the issue of maintainability of the writ petition is raised, it has to be considered in the light of the character of the said institution. It is not in disputed that the G.D. Birla Centre for Education (formerly known as Ashok Hall) is a private education institution having no deep and pervasive control of the Government. The letter of appointment is neither required to be approved by the Government nor any dismissal of the writ petitioners required prior sanction of the Government. The school is also not receiving financial aid from the Government. The enforcement of the service condition of a private institution was recently considered in St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. V. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. reported in 2023(4) SCC 498 in which is was inter alia observed:

“Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under article 226”.

6. Mere fact that the said private institution was imparting education does not by itself make the institution amenable to writ jurisdiction as observed in paragraph 75.3 of the said judgment which is reproduced below:

“75.3…… An education institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a “public function” or “public duty” be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

7. This issue has also been considered by a Co-

ordinate bench in Pinaki Dhar v. State of West Bengal & Ors (FMA 763 of 2022 dt. 27th March, 2024) in which it was observed as follows:

“24. A writ against a Private Ed