Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 529 (MP)

Reena Louis v. State of M. P.

2014-05-06

SANJAY YADAV

body2014
ORDER 1. Preliminary objection is raised on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 as to maintainability of the petition which is directed against the order dated 24.3.2014 and whereby, the petitioner's services as Prinicipal, M.G.M. English Medium Higher Secondary School Itarsi, has been dispensed. It is urged that, respondent No.4 school being unaided minority educational institution and since the termination of the petitioner relates to its internal management and no element of public law is involved its action is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the respondents No.3 and 4 are not State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Reliance is being placed on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar Saxena v. Holy Cross Ashram Higher Secondary School Datia: 2010(1) JLJ 221 = 2009 (4) MPLJ 641 . 2. The Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Saxena (supra) while placing reliance on the judgment by Supreme Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another: (1997) 3 SCC 571 and S.K. Varshney v. Principal, Our Lady of Fatima H.S.S. and others in Civil Appeal No. 8783/2003 decided on 19th July 2007, held :- "19. In the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering and another : (1997) 3 SCC 571 , the apex Court has held that writ petition against an unaided private institution is maintainable. In that case, the apex Court has held that if element of public interest is involved then writ petition against private educational institution can be heard. 21. The last judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is S.K. Varshney v. Principal, Our Lady of Fatima H.S.S. and others Civil Appeal No. 8783/03, decided on 19th July, 2007. In that case, a writ petition was filed against termination of an employee. Writ petition filed by the employee was dismissed by the High Court holding that no writ would lie against unaided private institution as also that no element of public law is involved in the matter. 22. Thus, the law laid down by apex Court in the cases of K. Krishnamacharyulu, Sushmita Basu and S.K. Varshney (supra), is that writ petition against an unaided educational institution is maintainable provided that element of public law is involved. 22. Thus, the law laid down by apex Court in the cases of K. Krishnamacharyulu, Sushmita Basu and S.K. Varshney (supra), is that writ petition against an unaided educational institution is maintainable provided that element of public law is involved. The apex Court in the case of S.K. Varshney (supra), has laid down that in case of termination, no public law is involved as the grievance of the petitioner is personal in nature. 23. In such circumstances, we hold that no writ petition is maintainable against an unaided educational institution; same will lie if element of public law is involved. In a case of termination of an employee the grievance is personal in nature and therefore, element of public law is not involved. 24. Contention of Shri Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that there are statutory rules, i.e., the Adhiniyam and Regulations framed thereunder and its violation is concerned, this ground also of no help to the appellant because mere violation of rules by any citizen or person will not include him in the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. If a person violates any particular law, it will not mean that he will be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India." 3. In view of the pronouncement of law in Sunil Kumar Saxena (supra) and taking into consideration the facts of present case that the respondent No.4 is unaided minority educational institution and that the services of the petitioner has been terminated which is personal in nature rather than involving any public element, the respondents No.3 and 4 are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Consequently, while upholding the preliminary objection, petition is dismissed in liminie. The dismissal of this petition will not come in way of the petitioner availing the remedy in Civil Court. 5. With these observations petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.