The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the show cause notice No.2'1801/APS/HRM dated 15.03.20'13 is illegal, arbitrary and vague (ii) declaring the termination order No.2'1801/APS/HRM dated 04.04.2014 is void abinitio in terms of proviso to section 79 of Education Act 1 of i gg2 (iii) and consequenfly set aside the same. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP. NO:'t 7108 0F 2014t Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No.21801/APS/HRM dated 04.04 2014 pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 oF 2014tWV MP. NO: 1400 oF 2014t Between:

1. The Armv public School,. Bolarum Represented by th,: Chairman and ^ Commandant. EME Centre, Secuno'"Iio"i,Hb6oqs 2 rhe principat, Army prbtil$il;i'EIiJffi,"sl".r"ae.r bad 5000.10 . AND ...pETlTtcrt |ERS/RESPoNOENTS Bhagwan Sinoh Rana. S/o Bha_girath Rana, agecl about 53 years Occ ]S::lS: g*tfol,J#;U r; orii stril"r,' itL%,, . : Jawa ha r Nasa r post ...RESPONDE I ITM/RIT PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the r,i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Corri may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted in W.p.M.p. No. 171OB,2O1t in W.p.No.i3683 of 2014 dated 28.04 2014 Counsel for the petitioner: SRI T.L.KANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHAR ,EE The Court made the following: ORDER a r THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.13683 OF 2Ol4 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the follou'ing relief: ". . , ro issue on ord.er, direction or u,it particularly one in the nature of wit of mondamus or any other oppropriate wit (i) declaing the shoul cause notice No.2 1801/ APS/ HRM dated 15.03.2013 is iLlegal, arbitrary and uague (ii) declaring the temtination Order No.2 1 80 1 / APS/ HRM dated 04.O4.2O 1 4 is uoid abinitio ir terms of prouiso to Section 79 of Education Acl I ctf 1982 (iii) ctttd consequentlg set aside tlrc sante and Pa.ss. .. "

2. Brief lacts of the case are that the petitioner has served the lndian Army from 08.01.1980 to 3l.Ol.2oo4. He \\ras initiall',' appointed as PRT (PTI) Primary Teacher (Physical) on 27.06.2005 on ad hoc basis. Subsequently, the said appointment uas converted into contractual basis u'.e.f. 12.O7 .2006. Eventually, extension of service has been granted to him for three,vears commencing from 02.O9.2O13 to O2.09.20 16 uide proceedings letter No.APSB/007 lLdm. dated 09.12.2013. The record shows that show cause notice No.218O1/APS/HRM, dated 15.03.2O13 was issued to the petitioner and he has submitted his explanation on 2l .O3.2O 14. Thereafter, he \\,as issued proceedings No.2180i /APS/HRM dated 04.O4.2O14 terminating his services on ciisciplinar-r' grounds u'ith effect from

04.05.2014 b-1' giving one monti-l salary as per terms and conclitions of z=. appointment letter The record further reveals that r t the time of filing l ..il of this u.rit petition, the petitioner s'as aged about 5i, ',ears.

3. When the nra(tcr is listcd or-i 14.08.20.1 i. there is no representation on behalf ol the petitioner. Even odav, u,hen the matter is listed under the caption "for Dismisr; Ll", there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Hcard Sri Rudraksh Toshniu al, learned cor. r sel represetrting Sri Deepak BhaLtac:hzrrjee, learncci Central (ior': -nment Counsel appearing lor the rcspondents. Perused the material :: I record

5. Learned counsel :rppearing for the 1.t respondt I t submitted that the writ petition is not maintarnable, in vieu, of ttrc judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Armg Welfare Educati >n Societg New Delhi u. Sunil Kumar Sharma and Othersr , u'llrein, it held as lo11or.r.s:

42. ln the per-rultimate paragraph, this Cor rt ruled as under: (Binny case, SCC p.671, para 32) "32. Aplrlvine these princrples, it can ven, \\ | I be saici th:it ar \\'ril of ntandarnlrs can be issr-rcd i qzrinst a privatc bodv u,hich is not "State" u.ithin t hr 'neaning ol Artir:lc I 2 ol the Constitution and su,. r bocl,v is arnenatrle to thc lurisdiction under Articlt' - t 6 of the (lrrr-rstjtrrlion i,rncl the Higlr (lourt unclcr Arr i ' t: 2)6 of I -i the Constil,ution can exercise judicial review of the action challcnged by a party But there must be a public law clement and it canno[ be exercised to enforce purcly private contracts entered into between the pa rtie s".

48. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court tn Rogchan Abraham a. State o:f tl'P', AIR 2019 All 96' after taking into consideration various decisions of this Court, held as under:- "38. Evcn il it bc assun-rcd that an educational ir-rstitution is imparting public duty' the act complaincd of must havc direct nexus with the discharge ol public dutv tt is undispulediy a public lau' action rl hich confers a right upon the aggrieved to ir.rvoke cxtrilordinzrry u'rit juriscliction under Article 226 tor a prerogative u'rit lndividual wrongs or breach ol mutual contracts u'ithout having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through pctition under Article 226' Wherever Courts exercise of jurisdiction under have inten'cned in the service conditions were Article 226, either regulated bv statutor"- provisions or the employer had the st:rtus of "State" within the expansive de[-rnition undcr Article 12 or it r'r'as found that the action complained of has public 1aw element "

42. ln uieu of the aforesaid, nothing more is required to be discussed in the present appeals We are of the uieut that the High Court conltnitted an egregious error in entertaining the utit petition filed bg the respondettts herein holding that the ' toll s( cl onlinc s( 168i I I ...F,Eri \ \! -- \ .+ oppelLcutl soctetu is e "Stote" within Arlici z Constitutictrt. IhtdoubtedlA, the school ntn bg ', Societg trLparts education. Imparting educcit publir: duttl cu ttl tlrcrefore pubLic lau-, elemen.t : said to be' hruoluetl. Houteuer, the relationship respondettls Ltereirt ond tlrc appeilant society i employee arLd r.t piuate ernploger aising ou t controct. lf there is a breach of a couenanl contrac| tlrc scnne does not touch arrg pLtblic. I 12 of the e AppeLlant tn inuolues uld also be rc-tuteett t lte that of <ut tf a pnuate 'f a pnuate rLu element. The school canrtot be said to be discharging cng pultLic clut.g trt cortnecllon tt'ttlt tlrc entpLoyrneri of'th,e resporL-. ? r? f-.. ''

6. In view of thc slrbmissions made bl the li:ant: i counsel for the respondents and the above Apex Clourt Jr-idgment the present \\,rit petition is not maintainable. Accordingl-r., ihrs r\.rit petition IS dismissed. There shall lte no order as to costs As a seqriel. rnisccllaneous aDplicarions pen(ijr'g, il an_1., in this Writ Petition, strall stancl closed SD/.B. REKHA RANI ASii iISTANT REGISTRAR ^{ ,----.- { ' \.-._?. --?' //TRUE COPY// \ 'l . One CC to SRI T L KANTHA RAO, Advocate IOpUq 2 One CC to SRt DEEpAK BHATTACHARJEE,'Advocire tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies | sEcTtoN oFFtcER To PSK BS \ HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 ORDER WP.No.13683 of 2014 'i[i rli :q:q :/ - -a- "' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS MMl_ lz IL ,l'