-Report by Manaswa Sharma
On 01.06.2021 the Calcutta High Court in its bench which includes Justice Shekhar B. Sharaf, withinside the case of Bineeta Patnaik Padhi Vs. Union of India & Ors. held that one Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility. It, in addition, said that if the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The gift Writ petition below Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed with the aid of using the petitioner claiming that at the same time as she turned into discharging her obligations because the Principal of Army Public School at Panagarh and at the same time as serving in her tenure as a prolonged probationer, she turned into terminated with the aid of using the chairman of the identical faculty from such published in violation of each her essential rights in addition to positive statutory rights.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Ms. Sonal Sinha found out suggest performing on behalf of the petitioner argued on the subsequent grounds:
- The suggest at the same time as concluding prayed earlier than the courtroom docket to invoke the writ of mandamus to implement provider situations of instructors serving in non-public unaided instructional establishments.
- Reliance turned into additionally located upon the choice of the Apex Court at the same time as analyzing the problem of termination of an Assistant Teacher in a non-public unaided group, in which it turned into held that a writ utility is certainly maintainable in such instances whilst opposition to the non-public unaided instructional establishments.
- It turned into emphasized that although the connection between the petitioner and the respondent turned into taken into consideration to have emanated out of a settlement, it’d now no longer close the doorways of this Court in invoking the writ jurisdiction below Article 226 of the Constitution.
- It turned into contended that primarily based totally on diverse choices of the Supreme Court the Right to Education is an essential proper below Article 21 of the charter and consequently denial of the identical might bring about the violation of one’s essential proper.
- It turned into submitted that those non-public establishments supplying training to college students from the age of six years and onwards, along with better training carry out a public responsibility and as a consequence falls below the purview of Article 12.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, found out Additional Solicitor General, performing on behalf of the contesting Respondents argued on the subsequent grounds:
- Mr. Dastoor additionally argued that for the reason that stated faculty turned into a non-public unaided faculty and the AWES that is dealing with it, isn’t a public body, because of the mandate of Article 12 of the Constitution of India consequently the affairs of the stated faculty might be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
- It turned into additionally contended that the jurisdiction below Article 226 should handiest be exercised with the aid of using a constitutional courtroom docket handiest if, an detail of public regulation is worried that is the sine qua non for the invocation of this Court’s powers below Article 226 of the Constitution and such electricity isn’t to be trifled with simple to implement non-public contracts of provider/ or provider associated contracts entered into among aware and ready parties.
- He additionally submitted that there’s neither a contravention of any statutory proper nor any essential proper assured below Part III of the Constitution of India, as alleged with the aid of using the petitioner.
- It turned into argued that such writ utility turned into now no longer maintainable for the cause that the stated faculty is a non-public unaided instructional group operated with the aid of using the Army Welfare Education Society.
- It turned into in addition submitted that the reality that the petitioner turned into serving below a length of prolonged probation and it turned into legally permissible for each the AWES or the stated faculty to assess the petitioner’s overall performance with the aid of using a distinctive feature of her popularity as a probationer, making her eligible for both an affirmation or a discharge from such provider and within side the occasion of a discharge, such settlement couldn’t be enforced thru writ utility below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
OBSERVATION AND JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The following remark has been made with the aid of using the Hon’ble bench of Calcutta High Court:
- If the petitioner has felt that she stands violated of her valuable essential proper or any felony proper for that matter, it’s miles this Court’s bounden responsibility to look at the propriety of the identical.
- In the case of Article 226, similarly to the enforcement of an essential proper, a petitioner also can are searching for the enforcement of any felony proper.
- The stated faculty that is run with the aid of using AWES had come to discharge a public responsibility which stands imposed in phrases of each Article 21A of the Constitution of India in addition to the RTE Act which gave impact to the essential proper in unequivocal phrases.
- A writ of mandamus may be issued to a non-public body/authority which discharges ‘public function’ below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On thinking about the above the objection at the floor of maintainability of the petition turned into rejected. Further, the stated faculty, Army Public School, Panagarh, is held to be a State’ below Article 12 of the Constitution because it turned into discharging public responsibility.