VEENA MEDIRATTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the termination order of the service of the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Ravi Kant, learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition on a contention that the institution concerned is a private institution under the management of a private society and its affiliation is with the Central Board of Institution which is also run by a Society not being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of law presently prevailing, such order of termination of service of a teacher of an educational institution can be challenged in writ jurisdiction. In support of such contention reference has been made to the judgments in the case of Smt. Rajni Sharma v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 3 UPLBEC 1664; Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2178, and particular reference was made to paragraph Nos. 111 and 113 of the said judgment. Further reference was made to the case of Arvind Kumar Sharma v. Central Board of Secondary Education, reported in (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1331; Purnima Banerjee v. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, reported in (1995) 1 UPLBEC 265; Sri Ram Saran v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1867 and K Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr., reported in 1997 (3) SCC 571.