Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. A.N. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner was working as Administrative Officer in DAV Public School, Amritsar. The said school is being run and managed by DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, which is a registered Society. In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.1.2008, whereby he has been removed from service by the Managing Committee, after conducting a departmental enquiry and following the procedures of CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws; as well as the order dated 18/19.12.2008, whereby his appeal filed under the aforesaid Bye-laws has been dismissed. Undisputedly, the respondent school is a private unaided school, being run by a Society. It is not an instrumentality of the State. Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against the respondent CWP No.
11691 of 2009 -2- school and availability of the alternative remedy before the Civil Court, counsel for the petitioner referred to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 649 :
Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for the violation of a right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is much wider than Article 32.
Counsel submits that since the respondent school is discharging the important public duties, therefore, the filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned orders is efficacious remedy. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any force in the contention raised by him.
The respondent school, being an unaided and a private school being managed by a Society, is not an instrumentality of the State. In my opinion, the petitioner has the efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned orders before the Civil Court. In the instant case, while challenging the impugned orders, the petitioner has raised certain disputed questions of facts. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to entertain this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy. August 05, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 05 Aug 2009. The bench was SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.