2009 (8) TMI 1261 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to removal from service by a private unaided school managed by a Society, maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, availability of alternative remedy before the Civil Court.

Challenge to removal from service: The petitioner, an Administrative Officer at a private unaided school managed by a Society, challenged his removal from service through a writ petition. The school, not being an instrumentality of the State, conducted a departmental enquiry and dismissed the petitioner following CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws. The petitioner's appeal against the dismissal was also rejected. The court noted that the petitioner had the option to challenge the impugned orders before the Civil Court, as the school did not fall under the purview of being a State instrumentality. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy available.

Maintainability of writ petition: The petitioner argued that due to the public duties discharged by the respondent school, filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was an efficacious remedy. Citing Supreme Court observations, the petitioner contended that seeking remedy under Article 226 was broader than Article 32. However, the court disagreed, stating that the respondent school, being a private unaided institution managed by a Society, did not qualify as an instrumentality of the State. The court held that the petitioner could challenge the impugned orders before the Civil Court, especially considering the disputed questions of facts raised in the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy available.

Availability of alternative remedy before the Civil Court: The court emphasized that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned orders before the Civil Court. Given that the respondent school was a private unaided institution managed by a Society and not an instrumentality of the State, the court deemed the Civil Court as the appropriate forum for addressing the disputed questions of facts raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to avail his alternative remedy through the Civil Court.