KAMAL KANT Vs. S.D.SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents have stated categorically in the reply that it is not an aided School and it has not claimed any grant -in -aid from the Government after 31 -3 -1993. It is also stated that it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner has been working under the respondents under a contract of service. Hence, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach an appropriate forum probably, a Civil Court to seek his reliefs.

(2.) This position is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Integrated Rural Development Agency v. Ram Pyare Pandey, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 495. In such circumstances, we do not propose to consider the merits of the case of the petitioner.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J P. and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1993 SC 2178. The question just now considered by us was not decided in that case. What is laid down by the passage found in the judgment was quoted from the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Samarak Trust v. V, R Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607. Even in the passage read out by counsel for the petitioner, it is clearly pointed out that the Institution in question was receiving Government aid and, therefore, public funds went in for running that Institution, The observations made by the Supreme Court cannot be taken out of the context and read dehors the facts of that case.