DILEEP KUMAR PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : The issue involved in these two appeals is whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli, in District Allahabad, is a 'state or authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Air Force Schools were established in the year 1966 for imparting education to the children of the personnel of the Indian Air Force (IAF). Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society (for short, 'the Society') was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was registered on 10/11/1987. It was established to manage Air Force Schools. The Air Force Schools at Bamrauli (for short, 'the said school') applied for affiliation with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in 1985.

(3.) According to the case of the appellant (Dileep Kumar Pandey) in Civil Appeal No.10899 of 2013, pursuant to a public advertisement and selection process conducted by the officers of the IAF, on 1/7/2005, he was appointed as a trained graduate teacher in the subject of physical education in the said school. According to his case, he was appointed on probation, and the probation period was extended from time to time. On 28/6/2007, an order was served upon the appellant stating that he was rendered surplus as the said school decided to appoint a more qualified teacher. An option was given to the appellant either to remain employed in the said school on contractual basis on a fixed salary from 1/7/2007 to May 2008 or to remain employed under the existing arrangement under which his service would come to an end on 3/7/2007. Therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of the High Court, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the appellant is a confirmed teacher in the said school. The writ petition was allowed by order dtd. 13/1/2010 by a learned Single Judge by holding that the said school was a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and was amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Single Judge, after setting aside the impugned orders, observed that it will be open to the Society to consider the claim of the appellant for confirmation in accordance with the law. An appeal was preferred before the Division Bench essentially on behalf of the management of the said school, which was allowed by the impugned judgment dtd. 12/7/2010. The Division Bench held that the said school was not a state within the meaning of Article 12, and as a result, a writ petition under Article 226 could not be entertained. Hence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside.