Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 577 (PAT)

Satyendra Narayan Jha v. Union of India

2011-04-06

body2011
ORDER Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in Navyug Vidayalay, Radha Rani Sinha Road, Bhagalpur which is a 10 + 2 school duly affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. The School aforesaid is registered under the Societies Act, 1860. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that he has been terminated as a Teacher of the School vide Annexure-3 on the ground that the School no longer requires the services of the petitioner taking into account the fact that there are insufficient number of student in the primary section of the school and the School has taken a decision to close down the primary section. The aforesaid order has been passed on the basis of the rules framed by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. 4. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 29 indicates that the Managing Committee shall also be competent to terminate the services of a confirmed employee only in case of abolition of a post due to closing down of School, a class or reduction in the number of sections of a class or discontinuance of a teaching subject by giving three months' notice in writing or three months' salary including all allowances. 5. The petitioner admittedly has received three months' salary and allowances before his services were terminated. The ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even before the notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-3, the school in question advertised for students in the primary section vide Annexure-2. It has also been submitted that another teacher namely, Dipti Sinha, who was similarly terminated as a Teacher has been reappointed on daily wages, thereby indicating, that the School is acting unfairly and depriving its teachers of regular salary and benefits that they would get after putting in long period of service in the school by adopting underhand methods and declaring closure of the primary section. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 has taken a ground that the writ application would not be maintainable as the school is a private one and does not come within the meaning of the term 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 has taken a ground that the writ application would not be maintainable as the school is a private one and does not come within the meaning of the term 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has also been specifically stated that the junior section i.e. SHISHU, BAL and PRATHAM classes have been closed down as there were insufficient number of student taking admission in the school. It has also been averred in the counter affidavit that Dipti Sinha is a Music and Dance Teacher and since cultural programmes often take place in the School, Dipti Sinha is appointed from time to time as and when required and thus the contention of the petitioner that the School is using underhand methods for making appointment is unjustified. 7. Answering the first contention of the respondents that the writ application would not be maintainable, Counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu Vs. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering [ AIR 1998 SC 295 ]. In this case, there was an executive instruction issued by the Government in which a right was given to the teachers of private institutions to be treated at par with the Government employees. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Supreme Court held that a writ would be maintainable in view of the fact that there is an "element of public interest" which envisages that the conditions of services of those employees working in private colleges should be placed at par with Government employees. On the other hand, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Others vs. Lakshmi Narain and Others [ AIR 1976 SC 888 ] specifically holds that societies registered under the Societies Act cannot be considered to be "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This case governs the field till today. 8. I would also like to refer to AnnexureR/3 annexed with the counter affidavit which indicates that one of the teachers of the said school had come to this. This case governs the field till today. 8. I would also like to refer to AnnexureR/3 annexed with the counter affidavit which indicates that one of the teachers of the said school had come to this. Court challenging the condition of his services this Court had held that it would be up to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi to ensure that the affiliated schools ensure fair conditions of services to its employees, the writ application was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate authorities. 9. In the facts as stated aforesaid, this Court comes to the conclusion that the writ application would not be maintainable against respondents 4 and 5 and the only remedy available to the petitioner would be to move before the appropriate authorities which controls the school in question. The petitioner may also move the concerned authority of the school in question for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.