SWARAN S. AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are being disposed of by this common judgment as the facts and points of law in both the matters are the same.

(2.) THE Petitioners are highly qualified and well experienced teachers and educationists in their own rights following the pious and noble calling of teaching the teachers for the blind Thus Mrs. Swaran S. Ahuja(in W.P. No. 96 of 1985) is an Honours Graduate from Delhi University. She received training in teaching blind children in U.K. in 1957 -58. She has had further training in the field at the Perkins School for the blind in U.S.A. in 1962 -63, where her training included a special observation of teacher -education methodology. She had presented many papers relating to the education of the blind and the teacher training at the national and international level. She was an invitee lecturer at the National Academy of Teachers of the blind, Palayamkalli and National Institute for the visually handicapped, Government of India, Dehradoon. She had served on many Committees appointed by the Government of India, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration and National Association for the Blind She has compiled the "Hindi Braille Shikshak" the only publication in India. Her pamphlet for the guidance of parents of the blind children published by all India Confederation of the Blind, has been translated in many Indian languages. Likewise, Mrs. S. V. Padbidri (in W.P. No. 97 of 1985) is B.A. (Hons.) and holds Diploma in Education issued by the Secondary Teachers Education Board. She also holds a Diploma in Education for the Blind issued by the Perkins Institute, U.S.A She was Honorary Secretary of the Blind Men's Association from 1952 to 1959. She was instrumental in starting a Braille Library in 1955 for the first time. She worked as an assistant teacher at the Victoria Memorial High School for the blind from 1955 to 1965. She was Honorary Secretary of the National Association of Instructors for the Blind from 1979 to 1983, in which capacity she had convened All India Conference for the teachers for the blind at Ludhiana in 1981. She had also translated pamphlets in Marathi for the guidance of parents of blind children published by All India Confederation for the blind, New Delhi. But irony of fate is that both the Petitioners, unfortunately, got a very shabby and ungrateful treatment at the hands of those who themselves have been rendering yeomen services in the very field of humanitarian cause of helping the blind.

(3.) THE petitions have been very vehemently resisted by and on behalf of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Whereas Respondent No. 3 opted not to file returns, the Secretary of Respondent No. 4 Jayantilal Ranchordas Mehta, filed an affidavit on behalf of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 at the admission stage and relied upon the same at the final hearing stage also. The Union of India (Respondent No. 1) and Respondent No. 2 did not file any returns controverting the contentions raised by the petitioners in their petitions. In substance, the case of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 is that they are not "the State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are thus not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. Further according to them, Respondent No. 3 is not a legal entity because it is not a statutory body and is not incorporated under any law or Act of Parliament and that no rules are prescribed in respect of Respondent No. 3 and its functioning. It is then contended that the Petitioners have sought the specific performance of contract of employment between private parties which is not permissible under Article 226. It is further contended that if Respondent No. 3 is held to be "the State", no relief can be granted against Respondent No. 4. A contention was also raised that the Petitioners were not appointed under letters of appointment but their appointments were under a scheme evolved and published by the Government of India for training the teachers for the blind and as per that scheme the Petitioners were not permanently appointed but they were appointed on contracts on year to year basis for courses and there was no vested right in favour of the Petitioners for being continued in the employment for the year 1984 -85.