Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bela Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP 8529 of 2020
Bela Saxena vs. State of MP and Others
Gwalior, Dated : 25/06/2020
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
''7(i) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash
order Annexure P-1 dated 31.03.2020 passed by respondent
No.2.
(ii) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to directing the respondent no.3 to decide complaint Annexure P-18 forwarded by office of Prime Minister of India.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances may also kindly be granted.'' Admittedly, the respondent No.2 is a Private School.
The Supreme Court in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 513 has held as under:-
''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 the learned Single Judge. In the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court has also placed reliance Chandra Nath Thakur v. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (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 Trigun Chander Thakur v. State of Bihar CWJC No. 10968 of 1994 order dated 31-08-1995 (Pat) 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.'' THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP 8529 of 2020 Bela Saxena vs. State of MP and Others Accordingly, it is clear that the respondent No.2 is not a ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for challenging the termination order passed by the respondent No.2. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to prosecute her cause before an appropriate forum.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDR Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH A KUMAR COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a BARIK 1a9e3451ee450d883083a8e4cc8020eee 6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2020.06.27 13:20:43 +05'30'