Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mrs. Nimisha Gupta W/O Shri Hans Kumar ... vs Army Public School (2026:Rj-Jp:1557) on 15 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:1557]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5158/2021
Mrs. Nimisha Gupta W/o Shri Hans Kumar Gupta, Aged About 50
Years, R/o D-123, Brahmaputra Marg, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara,
Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through
Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station
Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army
Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
Through Chairman.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5060/2021 Mrs. Manisha Bhaskar Ahluwalia W/o Lt. Col. Siddhartha, Aged About 40 Years, R/o T-110, Block-3, Rangoli Garden, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5067/2021 Mrs. Poonam W/o Lnk Bhawani Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o E-18, Vinayak Vihar, Bajrang Dwar, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (2 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur (Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur (Raj.). Through Chairman 4 The Army Welfare Education Society through its Managing Director, Building No.202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5149/2021 Mrs. Krishna Bhatia W/o Shri Ashish Bhatia, Aged About 40 Years, R/o G-2, Pink Pride, 30, Udai Nagar-A, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman 4 The Army Welfare Education Society through its Managing Director, Building No.202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5150/2021 Sumita Kumari D/o Shri Jale Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o - 172, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman.
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (3 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] 4 The Army Welfare Education Society through its Managing Director, Building No.202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5153/2021 Vandana Arora W/o Mohit Sethi, D/o Davinder Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o B-84, Acharya Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman 4 The Army Welfare Education Society through its Managing Director, Building No.202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5154/2021 Mrs. Pratiba Kanwar W/o Mr. Karni Singh Rathore, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 1A, A.k. Gopalan Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.), Through Chairman.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5155/2021 Manjusha Tyagi W/o Shri Manish Tyagi, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 402, Baba Residency, Kanak Vihar, Near Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (4 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.), Through Chairman.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5163/2021 Mrs. Sumita S. Kumar W/o Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o D-6/51, Chitrakoot, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur (Raj.)
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur (Raj.) Through Chairman.
4 The Army Welfare Education Society through its Managing Director, Building No.202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5164/2021 Mrs. Pinki Kumari W/o Shri Ravi Narayan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 57, Kanti Nagar, Kanti Chandra Road, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Chairman.
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (5 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5173/2021 Mrs. Rimple Kanwar W/o Yogendra Singh, D/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o F-3, Virat-20, Plot No.1-2, Parmanand Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5176/2021 Jyoti Jodha D/o Shri Anand Singh Jodha, Aged About 27 Years, R/o P.no. 14, Hanuman Vatika Extension, Gokulpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5182/2021 Barkha Sharma D/o Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o B-57, Habib Marg, Behind Utsav Garden, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (6 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman.
4 The Army Welfare Education Society through its Managing Director, Building No.202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5183/2021 Promila Yadav W/o Anil Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 68-A, R.k. Puram, Khatipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5194/2021 Mrs. Nitika Shukla W/o Shri Diwakar Shukla, Aged About 43 Years, R/o F-14, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through Chairman.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5209/2021 Mrs. Kavita Shekhawat W/o Shri Bhawani Singh Rathore, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 89, Ganesh Nagar, Near R.l. Public School, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Raj.) (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (7 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.). Through Chairman
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5210/2021 Mrs. Sunita Sharma W/o Shri Niranjan Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 158, Officers Enclave, Rawan Gate, Takiya Ki Chowki, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.). Through Chairman 4 The Army Welfare Education Society through its Managing Director, Building No.202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5243/2021 Mrs. Smriti Mathur W/o Abhishk Mathur, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 80/346, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur Through Principal
2. Chairman Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.).
3. School Administration And Management Committee, Army Public School, Jaipur Military Station Jaipur(Raj.) Through (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (8 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] Chairman 4 The Army Welfare Education Society through its Managing Director, Building No.202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi-110010.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman with Mr. Keshav Parashar, Mr. Moin Khan and Mr. Ashish Kalera Mr. Sanjay Mehla with Ms. Sunita Mehla and Mr. Nagendra Sharma Mr. Dinesh Yadav with Mr. Ankit Kumar Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi Ms. Karishma Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma Mr. Abhishek Sharma with Mr. Rohit Thakur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/01/2026
1. All these writ petitions were filed on the ground that petitioners are qualified for appointment as teacher in any of public school and pursuant to advt. issued by the Army Public School, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher, but during term of employment, the respondents have relieved and terminated the services of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners do not possess the qualification mandatorily required for appointment as PRT teacher in Army Public School. The petitioners have challenged the removal and termination by filing separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. These writ petitions are preferred by petitioners with common question of law, hence they are decided by a common order.
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (9 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
3. Prayer in each of the writ petition is reproduced as under:
"S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5158/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5060/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5067/2021:
1. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
2. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months.
bridge course in Elementary Education with all consequential benefits.
3. Any other Court order which this Hon'ble in the facts and deemed just and proper circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
4. by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the condition of probation in appointment order dated 24.4.2018 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be declared confirmed w.e.f. 24.4.2018 i.e. the date of her appointment on regular basis, alternatively probation extension order dated 18.3.2020 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (10 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] the petitioner be declared to be confirmed on the post of PRT with effect from 24.4.2019 on completion of 1 year as per applicable Rule 132 (b) of the Rules and Regulations;
5. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to file Circular dated 3.12.2018 and on perusal of the same, the Circular 3.12.2018 be quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner, or alternatively, Circular 3.12.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being appointee prior to issuance of said circular;
6. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Circular 28.6.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being appointee prior to issuance of said circular;
7. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to grant continuity of service to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5149/2021:
1. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
2. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months.
bridge course in Elementary Education with all consequential benefits.
3. Any other Court order which this Hon'ble in the facts and deemed just and proper circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
4. by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the condition of probation in appointment order dated 28.03.2018 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be declared confirmed w.e.f. 28.03.2018 i.e. the date of her appointment on regular basis, alternatively probation extension order dated 18.3.2020 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared to be confirmed on the post (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (11 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] of PRT with effect from 28.03.2019 on completion of 1 year as per applicable Rule 132 (b) of the Rules and Regulations;
5. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to file Circular dated 3.12.2018 and on perusal of the same, the Circular 3.12.2018 be quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner, or alternatively, Circular 3.12.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being appointee prior to issuance of said circular;
6. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Circular 28.6.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being appointee prior to issuance of said circular;
7. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to grant continuity of service to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5150/2021:
i. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii. by appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work PRT on regular basis in Army Public School, Jaipur by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5153/2021:
1. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
2. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course in Elementary Education with all consequential benefits.
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (12 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
3. Any other Court order which this Hon'ble in the facts and deemed just and proper circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
4. by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the probation extension order dated 18.3.2020 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared to be confirmed on the post of PRT with effect from 1.8.2019 on completion of 1 year as per applicable Rule 132 (b) of the Rules and Regulations;
5. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to file Circular dated 3.12.2018 and on perusal of the same, the Circular 3.12.2018 be quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner, or alternatively, Circular 3.12.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being appointee prior to issuance of said circular;
6. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to grant continuity of service to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5154/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5155/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5163/2021:
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (13 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
1. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
2. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course in Elementary Education with all consequential benefits.
3. Any other Court order which this Hon'ble in the facts and deemed just and proper circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
4. by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the condition of probation in appointment order dated 18.8.2018 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be declared confirmed w.e.f. 18.8.2018 i.e. the date of her appointment on regular basis, alternatively probation extension order dated 18.3.2020 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared to be confirmed on the post of PRT with effect from 18.8.2019 on completion of 1 year as per applicable Rule 132 (b) of the Rules and Regulations;
5. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to file Circular dated 3.12.2018 and on perusal of the same, the Circular 3.12.2018 be quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner, or alternatively, Circular 3.12.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being appointee prior to issuance of said circular;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5164/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5173/2021:
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (14 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5176/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5182/2021:
1. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
2. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months.
bridge course in Elementary Education with all consequential benefits.
3. Any other Court order which this Hon'ble in the facts and deemed just and proper circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
4. by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the probation extension order dated 18.3.2020 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be declared to be confirmed on the post of PRT with effect from 28.3.2019 on completion of 1 year as per applicable Rule 132 (b) of the Rules and Regulations;
5. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to file Circular dated 3.12.2018 and on perusal of the same, the Circular 3.12.2018 be quashed and set-aside qua the (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (15 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] petitioner, or alternatively, Circular 3.12.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being appointee prior to issuance of said circular;
6. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Circular 28.6.2018 be declared to be prospective and the same be declared to be inapplicable to the petitioner being appointee prior to issuance of said circular;
7. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to grant continuity of service to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5183/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5194/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5209/2021:
i) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5210/2021:
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (16 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
1. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
2. by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course with all consequential benefits.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5243/2021:
і) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 30.3.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as PRT in Army Public School by waiving the condition of 6 months bridge course in Elementary Education with all consequential benefits.
їїї) Any other Court order which this Hon'ble in the facts and deemed Just and proper circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the petitioner be declared to be confirmed on the post of PRT with effect from 20.8.2020 on completion of 1 year as per applicable Rules.
v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to grant continuity of service to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits."
4. During course of argument, a preliminary objection is raised by learned counsel for respondents that Army Public School is run by Army Welfare Education Society (AWES), a registered society under the Society Registration Act, 1860, therefore, Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) does not fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Before considering the matter on merits, this Court is considering the issue of maintainability (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (17 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Army Welfare Education Society (AWES), New Delhi versus Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 INSC 501, and Dileep Kumar Pandey versus Union of India and others, 2025 INSC 749, submitted that the Army Welfare Education Society is a registered society under the Society Registration Act and the same does not qualify fall under definition of "State" for issuance of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further referred to the judgment in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Anr. versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors., (2023) 4 SCC 498, and submitted that a writ cannot be issued against the respondents, as Army Public School is not a government school.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents further submitted that the land for the school in the area was allotted to AWES on lease for running the school on nominal rent, and the Board of Administration at Headquarters Command is the apex body for the management of the school; however, the day-to-day management is controlled by the local school administration and management committee (SAMC). He further submitted that since the respondent school is run by a society registered under the Society Registration Act and under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the Army Public School is not a State (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (18 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] or instrumentality of State thus the writ petition is not maintainable.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Army Welfare Education Society versus Manju Avasthi, (2006) 13 SCC 569, submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized the public character of the institution run under AWES and has considered the same as "State". She further submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the case of Dileep Kumar Pandey versus Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that institutions functioning under the administrative and regulatory control of the Society of Defence are amenable to writ jurisdiction.
8. She further referred to the judgments in the cases of Binni Limited versus Sadasivan, (2005) 6 SCC 657, and Rama Krishna Mission (2019) 16 SCC 303, and submitted that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable even against a private body discharging public functions.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya versus Asha Srivastava, (2020) 14 SCC 449, submitted that the Army Public School (AWES) are discharging public functions and duties. Therefore, they fall within the definition of "State" as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
10. Learned counsel also referred to Sections 17 and 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (19 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] 1989, and submitted that the respondents are under an obligation to follow the mandate as provided under the said law, thus, they fall within the definition of "State". He also referred the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Bhishwambharlal High School (Bagar) Trust and others versus Rajasthan Non-Government Institution, Jaipur and others, DB Special Writ Petition No. 3122/2001, decided on 17.07.2015, and submitted that the requirement of prior approval as mandated under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act is sufficient to draw a conclusion that without such approval, termination cannot be made, thus, the respondent is a "State" within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
11. He further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Army Welfare Education Society versus Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) and submitted that the conditions mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are not applicable in the instant case, as the petitioners have made out a case that the respondents are not only discharging public duties, but are running the school as if the army itself runs the school.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners further submitted that the respondent school is functioning like a government-funded school, as the land and building are provided by the Army. He further submitted that the army officials control the management of the school, and (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (20 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] the same is evident from the constitution of the management committees.
13. He further submitted that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred as "RTE Act of 2009") was enacted with the objective of providing admission to economically weaker children in private schools, but in the case of the respondent school, an exemption has been granted considering the Army Public School as a government school. He further submitted that if the respondent school is provided an exemption from the operation of the RTE Act of 2009, meaning thereby that the 25% reservation of seats for economically weaker children is not applicable in the case of Army Public School.
14. He further submitted that the judgment in the case of AWES, New Delhi versus Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra), is not applicable, as there was not enough material in the said case to consider the grounds raised by the petitioners in the instant cases.
Analysis
15. Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India are reproduced as under.
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State'' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
Article 226:
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (21 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (22 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
16. The issue as to whether a registered society is a "State" as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India was considered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia and others versus Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, (1981) 1 SCC 722, wherein it was observed as under:
If the Society is an "authority" and therefore "State" within the meaning of Article 12, it must follow that (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (23 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] it is subject to the constitutional obligation under Article 14.The true scope and ambit of Article 14 has been the subject matter of numerous decisions and it is not necessary to make any detailed reference to them. It is sufficient to state that the content and reach of Article 14 must not be confused with the doctrine of classification. Unfortunately, in the early stages of the evolution of our constitutional law, Article 14 to be identified with the doctrine of classification because the view taken was that Article forbids discrimination and there would be no discrimination where the classification making the differentia fulfils two conditions, namely,
(i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and
(ii) that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislative or executive action. It was for the first time in E.P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu this Court laid bare a new dimension of Article 14 pointed out that Article has highly activist magnitude and it embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness.
This Court speaking through one of us (Bhagwati, J.) said:
"The basic principle which therefore informs both Article 14 and is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., "a way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbled, cabined and confined"
within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.
Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (24 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Article 14 and 16 at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment."
This vital and dynamic aspect which was till then lying latent and submerged in the few simple but pregnant words of Article 14 explored and brought to light in Royappa's case and it was reaffirmed and elaborated by this Court in Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India this Court again speaking through one of us (Bhagwati, J.) observed:
"Now the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14: what is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated is this article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its all- embracing scope and meaning for, to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits...............Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-
arbitrariness pervades Article 14 a brooding omnipresence."
This was again reiterated by this Court in International Airport Authority's case (supra) at page 1042 of the Report. It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 at is arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not para-phrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (25 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 be breached. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of "authority" under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs though the whole of the fabric of the Constitution.
17. Again, the scope of Article 12 was considered by a larger Bench of seven Judges in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas versus Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, (2002) 5 SCC 111, wherein, while referring to the tests laid down in R.D. Shetty versus International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489, and as reformulated in Ajay Hasia versus Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (supra), it was observed that the tests formulated are not rigid or conclusive tests, so that if a body falls within one of them, it must ex hypothesis be considered to be a "State" within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be- "whether, in the light of cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by, or under the control of, the Government". Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found, then the body is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory, whether under a (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (26 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a "State".
18. Even after considering the judgment in the case of Zee Telefilms versus Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649, wherein after considering the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra), and the functional test laid down in Ajay Hasia (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by a majority view of 3:2, held that BCCI did not qualify as a "State".
19. This Court is required to consider the arguments as to whether the respondent is a "State" or not on the basis of the following tests:
(i) Functional test - whether Army Public School performs a public function or not;
(ii) Administrative control - whether the administration is dominated by Army officials;
(iii) Financial control - whether it uses public/state funds;
(iv) Public benefit test - whether it exists for a public purpose;
(v) Instrumentality test - whether it acts as an agency or instrumentality of the Government.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record the Rules and Regulations for Army Public Schools, 7th Edition, published on 25.03.2019. Chapter-1 reflects that the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) is registered under the Societies Registration Act, however, AWES was established with the object of providing education to the wards of army personnel. AWES is not a public body and it (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (27 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] has duties towards army personnel including widows and ex-
servicemen.
21. Chapter 2 provides for the organization of AWES and states that the President of AWES is the Chief of Army Staff, whereas the Vice President(s) are the Vice Chief of Army Staff and the GOCs of different Commands. The composition of management is described as under:
President -Chief of the Army Staff Vice President -Vice Chief of the Army Staff
-General Officer Commanding-in-
Chief HQ Southern Command
-General Officer Commanding-in-
Chief HQ Eastern Command
-General Officer Commanding-in-
Chief HQ Western Command
-General Officer Commanding-in-
Chief-HQ Central Command
-General Officer Commanding-in-
Chief HQ Northern Command
-General Officer Commanding-in-
Chief HQ South Western
Command
-General Officer Commanding-in-
Chief HQ ARTRAC
Members -Adjutant General
Quartermaster General
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (28 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] Engineer-in-Chief Director General Discipline, Ceremonials and Welfare Member Secretary -Managing Director, AWES
22. The Executive Committee also consists of army officers and even the Board of Administration at Headquarters Command consists of the GOC-in-Command and the Chief of Staff. The amended provisions with regard to financial management are also reproduced as under:
"Corpus and Grants for establishment of Army educational institutional will be provided by the Executive Committee form the Welfare Funds of the Adjutant the-Adjutant General Branch, Army Headquarters. The Board of Administration and the Managing Committee of respective schools/institutions will manage recurring expenditure and other expenses of schools/institutions."
23. Even the website of Army Public School suggests that the building of the school is constructed by the G.E. Branch from the funds provided by the Army. The AWES does not receive direct fund to manage individual school but infrastructure support is provided from government fund.
24. Aforesaid facts are sufficient to draw a conclusion that the school governance of AWES is by army officials, and even the Chief of Army Staff, is involved in the management. In case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya versus Asha (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (29 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the public functionality test and held that the writ petition was maintainable, in a case of management of school. This judgment was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Army Welfare Education Society versus Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra).
25. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners also indicate that the Army Public School is exempted from the operation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, meaning thereby that the 25% quota as prescribed for children of weaker sections is not provided in the Army Public School. However, the only issue before this Court is whether an Army Public School managed by the Army Welfare Education Society is a "State"
or not.
26. This issue was directly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Army Welfare Education Society versus Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) considering the judgments in St. Mary's Education Society versus Rajendra Prasad (supra), and Marwari Balika Vidyalaya (supra), and observed as under:
75.4. Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the term, an employee of a non-teaching staff engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration management is only an agency created by it. It is immaterial whether "A" or "B" is employed by (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (30 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] school to discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract between a school and non-teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non-
teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered with by the Court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty.
75.5. From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it is apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. In other words, the action challenged has no public element and writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the action was essentially of a private character.
76. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in taking the view that the original writ application filed by Respondent 1 herein under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The appeal court could be said to (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (31 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] have committed an error in taking a contrary view."
27. In case of Dileep Kumar Pandey versus Union of India (supra) the issue involved was as to whether the Air Force School, Bamroli, Dist. Allahabad, is a "State" or "authority"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
After considering the judgment in the case of Army Welfare Education Society versus Sunil Kumar Sharma and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it has not been shown as to how the Indian Air Force Headquarters had any control over the management of the school. Although some funds originated from the Army Welfare Education Society, it cannot be said that the State or the Indian Air Force had any control, let alone all-pervasive control, over the school. Moreover, the said society is not governed by any statutory rules.
28. A dissenting judgment is also delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held that the petitions filed by the appellants were maintainable, as the school enjoys privileges and facilities on account of its linkage to, and control by, the Indian Air Force.
29. Having taken note of two judgments, firstly, directly in the case of Army Welfare Education Society versus Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra), and secondly, by a larger Bench in a (2:1) judgment in the case of Dileep Kumar Pandey versus Union of India (supra), wherein a society, running schools but controlled by the Army was not considered either as a "State" or as an instrumentality of the State, it is (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (32 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] evident that the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is sufficient to decide the issue, about maintainability of these writ petitions.
30. The facts have been brought on record that the infrastructure support is provided by the Army and the top management is in the hands of Army officers, and further that the school is meant for Army personnel including ex-
servicemen. However, in view of the authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, this Court is bound by the ratio laid down therein. Thus, AWES or Army Public Schools run and managed by AWES are not "State" within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
31. The cases of the petitioners are that they were appointed on the post of teachers, particularly as Primary Teacher (PRT), and they do not possess the minimum qualifications as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Learned counsel have referred to the NCTE notification dated 28.06.2018, whereby it was made mandatory that teachers possessing the qualification of B.Ed. shall mandatorily undergo a six months' bridge course in elementary education recognized by the NCTE within two years of appointment as Primary Teachers, if they are already in service.
32. The summary of the case of each petitioner is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (33 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] Case Title Qualification Termination Service no. order 5158/ Mrs. Nimisha B.A, B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 Gupta v. M.A., CTET, basis: three Army Public years up to School 22.03.2017 vide order dated 31.03.2014 + three years up to 21.03.2020 5060/ Mrs. B.Sc., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 Manisha M.A., CTET basis: three Bhaskar years + three Ahluwalia v. years Army Public (05.04.2017-
School 21.03.2020)
vide order dated
01.04.2017
5067/ Mrs. Poonam B.Sc., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual
2021 v. Army M.A., CTET Basis: one year
Public + three years
School (05.05.2015-
22.03.2018)
vide order
05.05.2015
5149/ Mrs. Krishna B.A., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual
2021 Bhatia v. M.A., CTET basis: one year
Army Public + three years till
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (34 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] School 18.11.2014 + three years till 24.07.2017 + three years till 21.03.2020 Selected on 5150/ Sumita B.Com., B.ed, 30.03.2021 regular bases 2021 Kumari v. M.A., CTET vide Army Public appointment School letter dated 28.03.2018 Probation period: two years + one year up to 03.04.2021 vide order dated 18.03.2020 5153/ Vandana B.Tech., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Probation 2021 Arora v. M.Tech., CTET period: two Army Public years + one School year up to 31.07.2021 vide order dated 18.03.2020 5154/ Mrs. B.A., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 Pratibha RTET, CTET & Period: 11 Kanwar v. RTET months vide Army Public order dated (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (35 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] School 30.04.2013 + three years vide order dated 26.08.2017 + three years up to 21.03.2020 Regular Period:
5155/ Manjusha B.A., B.ed, 30.03.2021 01.04.2011 to 2021 Tyagi v. M.A., CTET 22.03.2012 Army Public Contractual School Service: time to time extension up to 22.03.2018 5163/ Mrs. Sumita B.A., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 S. Kumar v. M.A., CTET, period: three Army Public RTET years School 01.04.2013 to 22.03.2016 + three years 06.08.2016 to 22.03.2019 5164/ Mrs. Pinki B.A, B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 Kumari v. M.A., CTET period: one year Army Public + 11 months School vide order dated 25.09.2012 + three years + (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:19PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (36 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] three years up to 22.03.2019 5173/ Mrs. Rimple B.Sc., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 Kanwar v. M.A., CTET period: two Army Public years + one School year 5176/ Jyoti Jodha B.Sc., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Regular basis:
2021 v. Army M.Sc., CTET, probation period Public RTET of two years + School one year up to 01.04.2021 5182/ Barkha B.Sc., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Regular basis:
2021 Sharma v. M.Sc., CTET, probation period Army Public RTET of two years + School one year up to 01.04.2021 5183/ Promila B.Sc., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Regular basis:
2021 Yadav v. M.Sc., CTET probation period Army Public of two years + School one year up to 01.04.2021 5194/ Nikita B.A, B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 Shukla v. M.A., CTET, period:
Army Public RTET 22.04.2013 to
School 21.03.2014 +
three years vide
order dated
31.03.2014 +
(D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:20PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (37 of 38) [CW-5158/2021] three years vide order dated 01.04.2021 5209/ Mrs. Kavita B.Sc., B.ed, 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 Shekhawat M.Sc., CTET period: vide v. Army order dated Public 31.03.2014 + School three years 01.04.2015 to 22.03.2018 5210/ Mrs. Sunita B.Com, B.Ed., 30.03.2021 Contractual 2021 Sharma v. M.A, CTET period: vide Army Public order dated School 04.07.2010 + three years vide order dated 30.03.2012 + one year vide order dated 01.04.2015 + two years 11.01.2016 to 31.12.2018 5243/ Mrs. Smriti B.Sc., B.Ed., 30.03.2021 Joined as PRT:
2021 Mathur v. M.A., CTET 20.08.2019 Army Public School (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:20PM) PM) [2026:RJ-JP:1557] (38 of 38) [CW-5158/2021]
33. The petitioners were terminated on 30.03.2021 (during the period of COVID-19) by the respondents on the ground that, despite their appointment on probation for a period of two years and further extension of one year, the petitioners failed to procure the requisite qualifications as mandated by the NCTE in the notification dated 28.06.2018.
34. Since these writ petitions are not maintainable before this Court, therefore we are refraining ourselves from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. As writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable, therefore, this Court is not reproducing or analysing the arguments and judgments relating to the qualifications and termination of the present petitioners (merits of the case).
The petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum available under law to challenge their termination.
35. As a result, these writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are hereby dismissed, as not maintainable along with pending applications, if any. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue other remedy available under law.
36. No order as to costs.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /124-141 (D.B. SAW/1066/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded onon17/01/2026 (Downloaded 19/01/2026atat12:48:10 09:01:20PM) PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)