AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradipta Ray, J.—The writ Petitioner herein was temporarily appointed as the Headmisteress of Kindergarten English Medium School established and run by the South Eastern Railway Women''s Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the Organisation). Her services were terminated by the School Committee of the said Organisation by its resolution dated April 21. 1990. The Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the said order of termination primarily on the ground that she was not given any opportunity of hearing before the impugned termination.
A counter has been filed by opp. party No. 3 the then president of the Organisation. In the said counter filed on November 8, 1991 an objection has been taken regarding the maintainability of this writ application. It has been stated therein that this Organisation is just an association of private persons not even a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the school run by the Organisation was purely private unaided and unrecognised Kindergarten School. It has also been stated that neither the said Organisation nor the School received any fund or financial aid from Government or the Railways.
The writ petition does not contain any statement or material to show that the South Eastern Railways or any of the Governments has any kind of control over the Organisation or the school where the Petitioner was employed.
Mr. Basu learned Advocate for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Antaryami Rath Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and in Basanti Mohanty v. State of Orissa ana others reported in 72 (1991) C.L. T. 127. The institutions involved in those two decisions were recognised institutions within the meaning of Orissa Education Act arid though unaided were subject to at least some control as provided in the Orissa Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As already stated the School run by the Organisation was not in any way or ''manner subject to any statutory rules or Regulations. Accordingly, we are of the view that the principles enunciated in those.decisions could not be made applicable to the School run as it was at the material point of time, i,e. at the time of termination of Petitioners employment. 18. Crl.Misc. case dismissed.Accordingly, it cannot be held particularly on the basis of the materials on record that the Organisation and the School were amenable to writ jurisdiction at the material point of time.
Thus, the present writ application is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the Petitioner will be at liberty to approach any other forum available in law to agitate her grievance.
L. Mohapatra, J.
I agree.
Writ application dismissed