A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private unaided school for enforcement of service-related rights arising purely from a contract of employment, without any public law element.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has laid challenge to the select list of primary teachers issued by respondents No. 3 and 4 in July, 2023. She has also sought a direction upon respondents No. 2 and 3 to allow her to continue as Primary Teacher (hereinafter to be referred to as „PRT‟) and not to replace her with another contractual teacher.

02. As per case of the petitioner, she had joined respondent-Maharaja Hari Singh DAV Centenary Public

School, Akhnoor (hereinafter to be referred to as “respondent-School”) on 04.04.2014 as PRT. It has been submitted that the petitioner has to her credit nine years of continuous service and there has never been any complaint against her regarding her performance. In March, 2023, respondent No. 4 is stated to have issued an advertisement for the post of PRT to which the petitioner responded. She joined her service in April, 2023 but in July, 2023, a fresh advertisement notice was issued by respondent No. 4 for the session 2023-2024.

03. According to the petitioner, she appeared in the interview before the selection committee but to her utter surprise, her name did not figure in the select list and she was kept in waiting list. It has been contended that most of the candidates in the select list do not possess the requisite qualification and they have not undergone B.Ed course and they are not CTET qualified. The petitioner is stated to have made a representation to the respondent No. 3 voicing her grievance about her arbitrary rejection but without any success.

04. Respondent No. 1-UT of J&K and respondent No. 2-Chairman, CBSE have filed their separate replies. Both these respondents have contended that they are not concerned with the selection process. They have also contended that the writ petition against the respondent-School is not maintainable.

05. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed a joint reply in which they have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that relationship between the employees and the administration of DAV School is contractual in nature and as such, the same falls within the realm of private law. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivali Sharma and Ors Vs. Army Public School and Ors [WP(C) No. 533/2024] decided on 22.10.2024, respondents No. 3 and 4 have submitted that that the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

06. On merits, respondents’ No. 3 and 4 have submitted that the petitioner was working on contractual basis with the respondent-School and her contractual tenure was complete. It has been submitted that it is the prerogative of the selection committee to appoint or reject a candidate on the basis of his/her performance/merit. Since the petitioner could not satisfy the selection committee, as such, she was not selected. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has worked for nine years but her contractual appointment was never extended from time to time. In fact, she had applied at the end of each session and was appointed afresh on contractual period for each session.

07. It has been contended that the management has a right to appoint or reject any candidate and in the absence of

any malafides, the petitioner does not have a right to challenge the selection process.

08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

09. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be necessary to deal with preliminary objection raised by learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the petition.

10. According to the respondents, the respondent-School is a private institution, which is being run by a Society and the matters relating to appointment and selection of staff/teachers is governed by the bye-laws of the Society. It has been submitted that there is no public law element involved in the present case, therefore the writ petition against the respondent-school is not maintainable.

11. Le