In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition challenging the termination of a teacher from an unaided school recognized under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is maintainable. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh upheld the decision of a Single Judge who had earlier ruled in favour of the petition’s maintainability.
The case, titled “C/M Pratibha Inter College, Barabanki Thru. Manager Sri Indra Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education U.P. Govt. Lko. and others” (Special Appeal No. 115 of 2024), arose from the termination of a principal’s services by the Committee of Management of Pratibha Inter College, Barabanki, an unaided recognized institution.
The principal had filed a writ petition (Writ-A No. 3478 of 2024) challenging the termination order dated 09.04.2024 and an advertisement dated 16.04.2024 for appointing a new principal. The Single Judge had overruled the preliminary objection raised by the college regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, leading to the present appeal.
The key legal issue before the court was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against an unaided recognized school under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Counsel Girish Chandra Verma, appearing for the appellants, argued that the institution being unaided does not fall under the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, making the writ petition non-maintainable. He relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in St. Mary’s Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023).
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents Shri Sharad Pathak contended that the institution, despite being unaided, is recognized under the Act and performs an essential public duty, bringing it within the ambit of Article 12.
The Division Bench, after a detailed analysis, concluded that the writ petition is indeed maintainable. The court distinguished the present case from the St. Mary’s Education Society judgment, noting that the current institution is governed by statutory provisions, unlike the purely private school in the Supreme Court case.
Chief Justice Arun Bhansali observed:
“The very fact that the Regulations, which have been framed under the provisions of Section 7-AA (3) of the Act of 1921, govern all the aspects of engagement of part-time teachers and against the decision of the Management, pertaining to termination, an appeal is provided to DIOS, besides the fact that it cannot be said that the service conditions are not regulated by the statutory provisions, the interference of the State through DIOS in case of termination is very much there.”
Also Read
The court emphasized that the termination process involves a public law element, as it is governed by statutory regulations and provides for an appeal to the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). This distinguishes it from a purely private contractual matter.
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. – 115 of 2024
Counsel for Appellant :- Girish Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- Sharad Pathak
