P SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to this application which are, respectively, letter dated 18-7-1978, from the Government of India to the Government of Bihar offering to hand over the schools established and maintained by the Ramgarh Cantonment Board, the letter dated 10-1-1981 from the Government of Bihar to the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, informing him that the services of teachers of seven Schools enumerated therein which are all schools of Ramgarh Cantonment Board have been taken over by the State Government and the office order dated 17-1-1981 issued under the order of the President of Ramgarh Cantonment Board giving the names of the teachers of Ramgarh Cantonment Board Schools whose services have been handed over to the Government of Bihar.

(2.) The petitioners are either Headmasters, or Headmistress or assistant teachers in different schools established and maintained by the Ramgarh Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that no power has been given to the Contonment Board or to the Central Government either under the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act 1976 (the Act) or under any other law to transfer the services of the petitioners to the State Government and that there is no provision under the Act which empowers the State Government to take over the Schools established and maintained by the Ramgarh Cantonment Board. According to the petitioners, the actions of the Cantonment Board and the Central Government as well as of the State of Bihar is beyond the provisions of the Act and Cantonments Act. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Number 3, Ramgarh Cantonment Board. The whole thrust of the counter-affidavit is that the schools of the Cantonment Board have been handed over to the State Government in order to place these schools in uniformity with all other Primary Shools which have been taken over by the State Government and also that it was done in public interest. It has also been contended in the counter-affidavit that by tranfer of the services of the petitioners, their conditions of services shall be maintained. Law referred to by the parties are the Act and the Can tonments Act.

(3.) Mr. Sahai Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, took preliminary objection that this Court cannot issue any writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the specific provision in Article 227 (4) of the Constitution of India. It is true that in the cause title of the application Article 227 of the Constitution of India has also been mentioned; but in my opinion that Article has no bearing so far as this case is concerned. The Annexures impugned are not the orders of any Court or Tribunal, far less any order of any Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. This submission of Mr. Sahai Sinha has, therefore, no merit.