Ashok Chatterjee vs The Chairman Central Board Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7730 MP

                                             W.P. No.10287/2019

                               1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                    ON THE 14th OF JUNE, 2022
              WRIT PETITION No. 10287 of 2019
        Between:-
        ASHOK CHATTERJEE S/O LATE K.B.
        CHATTERJEE , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
        OCCUPATION: TG.T. (SENIOR) R/O Q.
        NO. B-234 N.H.-1 VINDHYA NAGAR
        SINGRAULI     DISTT.   SINGRAULI
        (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                             .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI DILEEP TIWARI- ADVOCATE )
        AND
1.      THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF
        SECONDARY EDUCATION (UNDER THE
        MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
        DEVELOPMENT, G.O.I.) TODARBAL
        MARG AJMER (RAJASTHAN)



2.      THE CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL MANAGING
        COMMITTEE D.P.S.VINDHYA NAGAR,
        ADDRESS- DPS SOCIETY, F-BLOCK,
        EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI



3.      EXECUTIVE   DIRECTOR   (IN  THE
        CAPACITY OF CHAIRMAN LOCAL
        MANAGING COMMITTEE) VINDHYA
        NAGAR SUPER THERMAL POWER
        STATION,     VINDHYA      NAGAR,
        SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    W.P. No.10287/2019

                                 2



4.     DR. J.PANDEY, PRINCIPAL, DELHI
       PUBLIC SCHOOL, VINDHYA NAGAR,
       DISTRICT   SINGRAULI   (MADHYA
       PRADESH)



5.     LAXMI NARAYAN SHARAN AGED
       ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION H.M.,
       DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL, VINDHYA
       NAGAR,    DISTRICT    SINGRAULI
       (MADHYA PRADESH)



6.     M.JOSE, HEAD MASTER DELHI PUBLIC
       SCHOOL, VINDHYA NAGAR, DISTRICT
       SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)



7.     A.V.RAO,     HEAD     ASSISTANT
       (ACCOUNTANT)    DELHI    PUBLIC
       SCHOOL VINDHYA NAGAR, DISTRICT
       SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                .....RESPONDENTS
       (SHRI AMAN RAI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
       SHRI QUAZI FAKRUDDIN- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
       NO.2, 4 TO 7
       SHRI P.C. SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
       NO.3. )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

                             ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

W.P. No.10287/2019

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"(i) The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to comply with order dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure P/5) within specified time.

(ii) The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P/7) withholding MACP of the petitioner from January- 2049.

(iii) To grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case."

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised a

preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this

petition, inasmuch as the petition against a private school is not

maintainable since the private school is not State within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner

is working as Teacher TGT (Maths) in Delhi Public School,

Singrauli. Delhi Public School is a private institution, therefore,

the same would not fall within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

W.P. No.10287/2019

3. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment

of Apex Court in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur Vs. State

of Bihar as reported in (2019) 7 SCC 513, in which it is held

that against the order passed by Managing Committee of the

private school, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further

relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satimbla

Sharma and others Vs. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School

and others as reported in (2011) 13 SCC 760, in which it is held

that the writ is not maintainable against the private institution. It

is further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in

the case of Deeksha Singh vs. Delhi Public School Gwalior

and others as reported in 2012 SCC Online MP 10698, has also

held that the writ against the unaided institution is not

maintainable. The dispute between the petitioner and the

respondents does not have any public law element and therefore,

the writ petition was dismissed. Further, Apex Court in the case

of Ramkrishna Mission and another vs. Kago Kanya and

others as reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 501, has held that W.P. No.10287/2019

writ would not lie to enforce purely private law right, even if a

body is performing a public duty amenable to the exercise of writ

jurisdiction.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Marwari

Balika Vidhyalaya Vs. Asha Shrivastava and others as

reported in (2020) 14 SCC 449 to contend that in identical

situation, the Apex Court has entertained the petition even where

the grant in aid is not received, therefore, this petition is

maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents in reply submits that

the case of Marwari Balika Vidhyalaya (supra) is

distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as that school was being run

by public trust, namely; Andi Mukti Sadguru Shree Muktajee

Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust, and the

trust was receiving grant in aid and was discharging public

functions, therefore, it was held that the writ petition is

maintainable. In the present case, the school is not run by any W.P. No.10287/2019

public trust. It is purely non-aided private school, therefore, as

held by the Apex Court in Trigun Chand Thakur (supra), the

private school is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India, the present petition deserves to be

dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. This Court finds force in the submissions of learned

counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, this Court has no

hesitation in holding that the writ petition is not maintainable.

Hence, the petition is dismissed on the ground of non

maintainability. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to

invoke jurisdiction of a Civil Court for redressal of their

grievance, if so advised.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.06.14 17:05:40 +05'30'