Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 10003 OF 2010
TRIGUN CHAND THAKUR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
st
(1) This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 21
January, 2008 in L.P.A. NO.670 of 1999 in and by which the
Division Bench of the High Court of Patna affirmed the judgment
of learned Single Judge holding that the Management Committee
of the private schools is not “State” within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence the writ
petition of the petitioner is not maintainable.
(2) The case has chequered history. The appellant was
appointed as a Sanskrit teacher on 01.01.1985. On certain
allegations, against the appellant by the School Department, a
show cause notice was issued to him on 06.09.1994. On
01.10.1994, the appellant received the communication informing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MAHABIR SINGH
Date: 2019.07.18
18:12:51 IST
Reason:
that he was suspended on account of his absence on the eve of
Independence Day and Teachers’ Day.
2
(3) Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the writ petition
before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ
petition, the service of the appellant was terminated on
23.12.1994. Learned Single Judge of the High Court vide Order
dated 31.08.1995 disposed of the writ petition with the consent
of both the parties observing that the appellant may agitate
his rights before the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha
Board and the Chairman of the Board shall consider the
representation of the appellant and dispose of the same in
accordance with law. On 03.08.1996, the Chairman, Bihar
Sanskrit Shiksha Board, considered the matter on the basis of
representation of the appellant against the order of dismissal
passed by the Managing Committee and found that the punishment
of termination of the appellant from service was
disproportionate and directed reinstatement of the appellant.
Being aggrieved, Managing Committee filed an appeal before the
Special Director, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education-
Respondent no.2, under Section 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha
Board Act, 1981. The Special Director (Secondary Education) by
Order dated 13.12.1997 remanded the matter back to the
Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, with a direction to
reconsider the matter in the light of the grounds taken in the
appeal.
(4) Being aggrieved by remand of the matter to the Chairman,
Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, the appellant filed writ petition
before the High Court seeking to quash Order dated 13.12.1997.
3
Learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the Judgment of the
Patna High Court in Chandra Nath Thakur v. The Bihar Sanskrit
Shiksha Board & Ors., 1999 (1) PLJR 529 and by Order dated
29.04.1999 dismissed the writ petition and held that in matters
relating to the termination of the teachers by the Managing
Committee of the private school, the writ petition is not
maintainable and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
(5) Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed L.P.A. NO.670 of
1999 before Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench vide impugned order dated 21.01.2008 dismissed the L.P.A.
filed by the appellant and affirmed the order passed by learned
Single Judge. In the impugned order, the Division Bench of the
High Court has also placed reliance on Chandra Nath Thakur v.
The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors., 1999 (1) PLJR 529 and
held that a teacher of a privately managed school, even though
financially aided by the State Government or the Board, cannot
maintain a writ petition against an order of termination from
service passed by the Management Committee. The Division Bench
also pointed out that the consent order passed by the High
Court in C.W.J.C. NO.10698 of 1994 cannot confer jurisdiction
on this Court and does not make the Managing Committee “State”
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
(6) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and the materials on record, we do not find any
ground to take a different view.
4
(7) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
.........................J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
.........................J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 09, 2019.