In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has determined that a writ petition challenging the termination of a teacher from an unaided school, recognized under The UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is valid. This decision was rendered by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, who upheld an earlier ruling by a Single Judge in favor of the petition's maintainability.
The case, "C/M Pratibha Inter College, Barabanki Thru. Manager Sri Indra Kumar and another vs. State of UP Thru. Prin. Secy Deptt. of Secondary Education U.P. Govt. Lko and others (Special Appeal No. 115 of 2024)," stemmed from the termination of the principal at Pratibha Inter College, Barabanki, an unaided but recognized institution. Following his termination, the principal filed a writ petition (Writ A No. 3478 of 2024) against the termination order dated April 9, 2024, and an advertisement issued on April 15, 2024, seeking to appoint a new principal. The college had initially contested the writ petition's validity, but the Single Judge dismissed their objections, leading to this appeal.
The central legal question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be maintained against an unaided recognized school under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Girish Chandra Verma, representing the appellants, argued that since the institution is unaided, it does not qualify as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, making the writ petition invalid. He referenced a Supreme Court judgment in the case of St. Mary's Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023) to support his argument.
Conversely, Sharad Pathak, representing the respondents, contended that the institution, although unaided, performs essential public duties as a recognized entity under the Act, thus falling within the scope of Article 12.
After thorough deliberation, the Division Bench concluded that the writ petition was indeed maintainable. The court distinguished this case from the St. Mary's Education Society ruling, pointing out that the current institution is subject to statutory provisions, unlike the purely private school in the Supreme Court case.
Chief Justice Arun Bhansali remarked that the regulations under Section 7-AA (3) of the Act of 1921 govern various aspects of part-time teachers' employment. He emphasized that the state's involvement through the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) in termination cases indicates that the service conditions are regulated by statutory provisions, validating state interference in such matters.
This ruling marks a significant moment for educational governance, reinforcing the accountability of recognized institutions, even if they are unaided, in maintaining fair employment practices.
To get free legal advice:https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
