Dr. Anand Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10037 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6695 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Anand Chaurasia
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prakash Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabhakar Awasthi,Pramod Kumar Singh,Rohit Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 30.5.2021 passed by the respondent no. 5.

A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition would not lie at the instance of an employee of a private un-aided institution in respect of his employment.

Issue in that regard has already been determined by this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020 (2) ADJ 409. The judgment in Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (supra) has been followed by another Bench in Writ Petition No. 4789 of 2020 ( Bruce Henderson Vs. State of U.P. and others). Special Appeal (Def.) No. 1033 of 2020 has also been dismissed on 13.4.2021. All the judgments have essentially relied upon by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Vs. Lakshmi Narain and others; (1976) 2 SCC 58. It has been held that none of the three exceptions in the case of Vaish Degree College (supra) are attracted in the facts of this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. Stateof Punjab, 2012 (12) SCC 331 in which the Supreme Court relied upon judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2002 (8) SCC 481 to observe that appellate tribunal should be constituted in such matters. In para-18 it is recorded that in State of Punjab a statutory tribunal had already been created which had the power to entertain appeals even where orders have been passed by un-aided institutions. Such tribunal is not created in State of Uttar Pradesh.

In the facts of the present case, none of the three exceptions arises on facts and therefore contract of personal service cannot be enforced in writ.

Dismissed, accordingly.

Order Date :- 10.8.2021

n.u.