Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37847 of 2017 Petitioner :- Imran Yusuf Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard Sri S. C. Kushwaha, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari quashing order dated 12.7.2017 whereby services of petitioner has been terminated and also a writ of mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in peaceful functioning of petitioner as Lecturer in Electronics and Communications Engineering Department in Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology and pay salary time to time as and when it fallen due.
3. Petitioner, admittedly, is a teaching employee of Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology now known as Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University (hereinafter referred to as 'University'), which is a private institution.
4. The manner of appointment of petitioner is stated in para 8 of writ petition. It is alleged that he came to know from reliable sources that there are vacancies in the aforesaid institution for the post of Lecturer in Electronics and Communications Engineering Department and submitted an application offering his services and thereafter letter of appointment was issued on 6.11.2008 by Registrar of said Institute appointing petitioner on probation for a period of one year on consolidated salary of Rs.8000/- per month.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by means of impugned order he has been terminated without approval of Vice Chancellor of University. It is further submitted that there are Model Service Rules of University and Rule 21.3 requires that if any employee was to be terminated, he should have been given three month's notice or three month's pay in lieu of the notice.
6. We repeatedly asked counsel for the petitioner as to how aforesaid Model Service Rules carry statutory force, but counsel for petitioner could not reply. Further against appointment and termination of an employee in a private Institution a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable as has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in case of M. K. Gandhi vs. Director of Education, 2005 (4) Education Service Cases 2265. In the Civil Appeal No.339 of 2007 (Committee of Management, Delhi Public School & anor Vs. M.K. Gandhi and others) preferred against the said judgment of this Court, the Apex Court in its judgment dated 16.8.2007, while confirming the view of this Court, has further held that no direction can be issued to C.B.S.E. interfering with the termination of Teachers and held as under :
"When the Allahabad High Court has already held that the DPS School is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is not maintainable, there was no necessity for giving a direction to the CBSE which virtually amounts to granting a declaration in favour of those teachers whose services have been terminated. We fail to appreciate the view taken by the Allahabad High Court by unnecessarily complicating the issue by involving the CBSE for a private dispute between the teachers and the DPS. The Allahabad High Court should have stop short of holding that the said DPS is a private body and the writ is not maintainable. Hence, we are of the view that no writ is maintainable against a private school as it is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no direction could have been given by the High Court to the CBSE for interfering with the termination of the teachers. The proper remedy for the teachers was to file a civil suit for damages, if there was any. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Allahabad High Court to the extent of giving a direction to the Board. There will be no order as to costs."
7. In view of the law laid down in the case of M.K. Gandhi (supra), which has consistently been followed by this Court, in a catena of decisions, the instant writ petition against a private institution is not maintainable.
8. Writ petition lacks merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Manish Himwan