REENA LOUIS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Preliminary objection is raised on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4 as to maintainability of the petition which is directed against the order dated 24.3.2014 and whereby, the petitioner's services as Principal , M.G.M. English Medium Higher Secondary School Itarsi, has been dispensed. It is urged that, respondent no. 4 school being unaided minority educational institution and since the termination of the petitioner relates to its internal management and no element of public law is involved its action is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the respondents no. 3 and 4 are not State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Reliance is being placed on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar Saxena V. Holy Cross Ashram Higher Secondary School Datia, 2009 4 MPLJ 641.

(2.) The Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Saxena while placing reliance on the judgment by Supreme Court in K. Krishnamacharyulu and others V. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another, 1997 3 SCC 571and S.K. Varshney v. Principal, Our Lady of Fatima H.S.S. and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 8783/2003 decided on 19th July 2007, held:-

(3.) In view of the pronouncement of law in Sunil Kumar Saxena and taking into consideration the facts of present case that the respondent No. 4 is unaided minority educational institution and that the services of the petitioner has been terminated which is personal in nature rather than involving any public element, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.