Nitish Biswas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87980
1 WA-3658-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3658 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010743872026
NITISH BISWAS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitish Biswas - Appellant appearing in person.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The appellant has filed this present appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P.
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being
aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2026 whereby Writ Petition No.8623/2026 has
been dismissed by the Writ Court.
2. The facts of the case, in nutshell are that on 10.06.2011, the
appellant/writ petitioner was appointed initially appointed on the post of Post
Graduate Teacher (PGT-Physics) in Sagar Public School which is affiliated to
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi. He was terminated
from the services on 01.02.2022. Aggrieved thereby, he submitted various
representation from the year 2022 to 2025 as well as made complaint to the Joint
Director, DPI.
3. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this court by way of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
5:28:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87980
2 WA-3658-2026
filing Writ Petition No.8623/2026 in the year 2026 challenging the termination

order dated 01.02.2022 passed by Respondent No.7-Director/Ex-Principal, Sagar
Public School, Bhopal. The Writ Court dismissed the said Writ Petition vide order
dated 08.09.2026, on the ground that the same is not maintainable because the
Respondent No.6 is Non-Government, Non aided Educational institution. Hence,
this present Writ Appeal filed before this Court.
4. The appellant/writ petitioner present in person submits that the Writ
Petition is very much maintainable as the respondent/school was affiliated with
CBSE and under the control of Commissioner/DPI. Also, before terminating his
service, no opportunity of hearing was granted to him, which is in violation of
principles of natural justice, therefore, the Writ Petition is very much maintainable
in order to protect the fundamental right of the appellant/writ petitioner.
5. It is further submitted that the respondent/School has prepared forged
appointment letter of the appellant/writ petitioner dated 05.03.2018 whereas he
was appointed on 10.06.2011 and put the same before Commissioner, DPI. Hence,
Writ appeal be restored for adjudication on merits.
6. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society &
Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors., (2023) 4 SCC 498, has held that a writ
petition is not maintainable against a private respondent institution in a matter of
service contract. The relevant paragraphs are as under:
“34. It needs no elaboration to state that a school
affiliated to the CBSE which is unaided is not a State within
Article 12 of the Constitution of India [See: Satimbla Sharma
v. St. Pauls Senior Secondary School [(2011) 13 SCC 760].
Nevertheless the school discharges a public duty of imparting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
5:28:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87980
3 WA-3658-2026
education which is a fundamental right of the citizen [See: K.

Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of
Engineering, (1997) 3 SCC 571]. The school affiliated to the
CBSE is therefore an “authority” amenable to the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [See: Binny
Ltd. and another v. V. Sadasivan and others, (2005) 6 SCC
657]. However, a judicial review of the action challenged by
a party can be had by resort to the writ jurisdiction only if
there is a public law element and not to enforce a contract of
personal service. A contract of personal service includes all
matters relating to the service of the employee - confirmation,
suspension, transfer, termination, etc. [See : Apollo Tyres
Ltd. v. C.P. Sebastian, (2009) 14 SCC 360].”
“68. … (c) It must be consequently held that while a
body may be discharging a public function or performing a
public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to
judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees
would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High
Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating
to service where they are not governed or controlled by the
statutory provisions. An educational institution may perform
myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in
the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would
fall within the domain of a “public function” or “public duty”
be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article
226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
5:28:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87980
4 WA-3658-2026
within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having

no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being
amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or
governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in
the realm of an ordinary contract of service.”
7. The appellant/petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Civil Court.
8. In view of the above, present Writ Appeal is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Shivani

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 11/3/2026
5:28:38 PM