The Army Welfare Education Society is not a 'State' under Article 12, making the writ petition for termination unenforceable as it pertains to a private contract.

1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

“CERTIORAR

(i) Seeking quashment of Article 132(B) and 132(C) of red book which is illegal, arbitrary and against the mandate of constitution of India as well as the same is violative of the principal of nature, justice and being arbitrary powers, which hits the fundamental rights of an individual.

(ii) Quashment of termination order dated 16.02.2024 issued by the respondent No.5 being violative of principle natural justice as well as issued by incompetent officer and without jurisdiction.

MANDAMUS:-

(i) Commanding and directing the respondents to allow the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 to continue work on the posts held by them in Army Public School, Udhampur, i.e., TGT- (Social Science), TGT (Science), PGT (Mathematics), respectively.

(ii) Commanding and directing the respondents to release the salary of the petitioners alongwith all the consequence benefits as applicable to the petitioners from time to time.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.”

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

Before advancing on this topic, it is appropriate to provide a quick summary of the facts, concisely outlined as follows:

2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appointed as TGT (Regular) in Social Science, petitioner No. 3 as TGT in English, and petitioner No. 4 as PGT in Mathematics at Army Public School, Udhampur, following the Advertisement Notice dated 16.03.2022. After completing the written test and interview, the selection list was published on 31.03.2022, listing petitioner No. 1 at Serial No. 8 for TGT (Social Science), petitioner No. 2 at Serial No. 9 for TGT (Social Science), petitioner No. 3 at Serial No. 3 for TGT (English), and petitioner No. 4 at Serial No. 1 for PGT (Mathematics) at Army Public School, Udhampur.

3. The petition asserts that respondent No. 4, as the Chairman of Army Public School, Udhampur, issued appointment orders dated 05.05.2022 for petitioners Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and an order dated 24.03.2022 for petitioner No. 3, in his capacity as the appointing authority.

4. Furthermore, since the petitioners were appointed on a regular basis, their services are subject to the statutes governing Central Government employees, and they were provided with the pay scale and dearness allowance applicable to such employees. Consequently, the service regulations applicable to Central Government personnel are pertinent to the petitioners as well, rendering the contested orders invalid and necessitating their annulment. The petitioners assert that they were not selected on a contractual or necessity basis; therefore, the regulations cited against them do not apply to their services.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

5. The petitioners counsel has attempted to establish a distinction based on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in "Army Welfare Education Society Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma and others." It has been submitted that in the aforementioned judgment, the petitioners sought the enforcement of a private contract; however, the present case is distinguishable, as the petitioners are employees of the Army Public School. According to the Learned Counsel, these employees (petitioners) are performing a public duty of teaching and executing a public function, which falls within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering the petition maintainable.

6. The learnt counsel for the petitioners asserts that the petitioners should not be dismissed from their positions at the arbitrary discretion of the respondents, and that any service conditions that contradict universally accepted rules cannot be applied to the petitioners, as they violate the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the contested orders must be annulled. He asserts that the issue concerning the maintainability