11.03.2025 Court No.23 DL/Item No.–4 [Milan, A.R. (Ct.)]

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 28775 of 2024 Sujata Banerjee versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Akshay Singh, Ms. Ipsita Ghosh ….for the Petitioner Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Sayan Ganguly ….for the State Ms. Tanvi Luhariwala, Mr. Atanu Agarwal, Ms. Simran More ….for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 The petitioner is an employee of K 12 Techno Services Private Limited being the respondent no.3 in this writ petition. The appointment letter dated 17th June, 2023 issued to the petitioner, is on a plain reading, nothing but a contract between the employer and the employee without any statutory protection. The designation of the petitioner as assigned under the said appointment letter, is “Zonal Head – Sales”. The petitioner’s service has been clearly held to be terminable from the side of the employer by issuance of a 30 days’ notice. In any event, the employer reserved its right to terminate the petitioner’s service at any point of time.

The petitioner says that the respondent no.3 is operating schools all over India and, as such, discharging public duty. The wrongful termination of the petitioner’s service is, therefor, an issue amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Admittedly, the respondent no.3 being the employer is a company within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner’s designation is also Zonal Head – Sales and not as a teacher. The prayers in the writ petition also clearly show that writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought for commanding the respondent no.3 to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect, after holding that the termination of the petitioner’s service was illegal and wrongful.

The respondents have objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that a master-servant relationship in a private company under the Companies Act, 2013 is not an issue amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

The writ petitioner, in order to circumvent this objection, submits that by operating schools pan India, the respondent no.3 is discharging public duty and, as such, the said respondent no.3 is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The petitioner, in support of her contention, has relied upon a judgment reported in

1989 (2) SCC 691 [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. Vs. V. R. Rudani & Ors.]. The petitioner, relying upon the said judgment, says that the respondent no.3 is discharging public function in the form of imparting and propagating education. It has, therefor, assumed a public character while discharging such public function and, as such, is to be treated as an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

The termination of the petitioner’s service, therefor, can be assailed by filing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further refers to a judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 177 [S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Limited]. By relying upon the said judgment, it is submitted that the respondent no.3 is a legal entity in discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature and, as such, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction when it relates to the issue of termination of the petitioner’s service.

The respondents, on the other hand, dispute that the respondent no.3 is operating educational institution to impart education either under the control of the concerned Government or otherwise. There is as such no public duty involved, as a consequence whereof, the respondent no.3 can be treated as an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

The broad classification made in S. Shobha (supra) for a writ to be maintained against a Private Limited Company is not satisfied since the record does not reveal that the petitioner was working in an agency which had a public character or is performing public duty.

The respondents