MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] versus ASHA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 14-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
MARWARI BALIKA VIDYALAYA
v.
ASHA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9166 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Writ petition – Maintainability
of – Termination of school teacher – Challenge to – Writ application
filed by the school teacher against private school – Dismissed by
the Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the school
was not a recognised primary school by State Government but a
privately managed primary school, thus, the writ application was
not maintainable – Division Bench held that the writ application
was maintainable – Termination order was set aside and the school
teacher was allowed to join appellant school with the full entitlement
of salary, allowances and service benefits – On appeal, held: Writ
Application is maintainable even as against the private unaided
educational institutions since providing education to children is a
public function – Appointment was, at first instance, on probation
for two years – Approval of the appointment from the District
Inspector of Schools had been made with retrospective effect and
no approval was obtained for the purpose of removal – Government
also pleaded in its reply that approval of appointment was made
necessary considering the arbitrariness in the appointments which
was prevailing, and once approval for appointment was necessary
there is no doubt that approval for removal was also necessary –
Order of dismissal was passed in the most arbitrary manner without
holding a departmental enquiry – Thus, the order of the Division
Bench upheld – Issuance of direction to grant back wages to the
school teacher – Service law.
Committee of Management, Delhi Public School & Anr.
v. M.K. Gandhi & Ors. (2015) 17 SCC 353; Sushmita
Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Shiksha Samity & Ors.
(2006) 7 SCC 680 : [2006] 6  Suppl.  SCR 506;
Satimbla Sharma & Ors. v. St. Paul’s Senior Secondary
School & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 760 : [ 2011] 10
 SCR 203 - distinguished.
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 722
722
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2012) 12
SCC 331 : [2012] 12 SCR 315 ; Raj Kumar v. Director
of Education & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 541 :  [2016] 1
 SCR 697 ; Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India &
Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 369 : [ 1984]  2  SCR  453  –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 12 SCR 315
referred to
Para 11
[2016] 1 SCR 697
referred to
Para 11
(2015) 17 SCC 353
distinguished
Para 11
[2011] 10 SCR 203
distinguished
Para 17
[2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 506
distinguished
Para 18
[1984] 2 SCR 453 
referred to
Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9166
of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2009 of the  High
Court  at Calcutta in A.P.O.T. No. 709 of 2001 in Writ Petition No. 889
of 2001.
Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv., Shabyashachi Patra, Sayan Ray, Soumo Palit,
M/S. Khaitan & Co., Advs. for the Appellant.
Arun K. Sinha, Swastik Verma, Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh, Suhaan
Mukerji, Ms. Astha Sharma,  Amit Verma, Dimple Nagpal, M/S. PLR
Chambers And Co., Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed
O R D E R
1. The main question for consideration in the appeal is as to
maintainability of writ petition as against private school receiving grant
in aid to the extent of dearness allowance. The appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2009 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Calcutta whereby the appeal filed by
respondent No.1 was allowed directing his reinstatement along with back
wages.
MARWARI BALIKA VIDYALAYA v. ASHA SRIVASTAVA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
724                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein applied
for the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1985 and after the interview
she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the appellant-school on
probation w.e.f. 01.04.1995.  The school authority referred all requisite
papers to the District Inspector of Schools concerned seeking approval
on 31st March 1995.  On 2nd January 1997 concerned District Inspector
of Schools (Primary Education), Calcutta referred those papers to the
Director of School Education, West Bengal for his opinion who in turn
requested the District Inspector of Schools concerned to submit a
declaration from respondent No.1 herein that she would not claim any
arrear of salary.  Respondent No.1 unwillingly agreed to such an
un
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.