Unaided Recognised Schools Under The UP Intermediate Education Act Will Be Covered By Article 12 Of Constitution: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that 'unaided recognised schools' under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 will come under the definition of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that, "the private unaided school performing a public duty, wherein, the employees are engaged for purpose of administration or internal management, is the only agency created by it, but so far as the present institution is concerned, that’s not a ‘private unaided school’, but the same is ‘unaided recognised school’ under an statute named as Act 1921’ and thus, the institute in terms of status of the ‘State’ very well comes under the expensive definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further to the certain extent of discharging the duties being the principal in an unaided recognised school, the nature of the function/duty cannot be declined to be the nature of performing a public function by the petitioner."
Counsel Sharad Pathak appeared for the petitioner, while CSC Gurush Chandra Verma, along with others, appeared for the respondent.
The case involved the termination of the petitioner from the position of Principal on 9th April 2024 by opposite party No. 3, followed by an advertisement on 16th April 2024 announcing an interview on 5th May 2024 to appoint a new Principal.
The opposite parties raised preliminary objections, arguing that the petitioner, employed by an unaided recognised college, was not governed by statutory provisions and that the dispute was a private matter between the Management Committee and the petitioner. They contended that the institution did not fall under the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, thereby rendering the writ petition non-maintainable. Furthermore, they noted that the State did not pay the petitioner's salary or remuneration, reinforcing that the employment contract was purely a private affair.
The took Court the considered view that, "the institute is a recognised college, wherein, the petitioner was working as a Principal up till the date of termination. The institute was given recognition under section 7-A of the Act 1921, and further more, the provisions are also prescribed for appointment of teachers vide order dated 10th August 2001 in such unaided recognised school, though, the order dated 10th August 2001 is silent over the appointment of Principal/Head of the Institution, but the inference could be drawn that once an institution is given the recognition under a statute and even by way of the provision promulgated by the State Government, wherein, the procedure for the appointment of teachers are also prescribed, such institution could be termed having the status of ‘State’ within the expansive definition under Article 12 of the Constitution of India."
It was also observed that since the examinations of the students of the institution are also held and supervised by the Board and the Principal have entrusted upon the public duty of an administrative control over all those functions and therefore, such Principal, undisputedly performs a public function. The duties and function of the petitioner is in fact of such a nature which otherwise gets strength from the statute.
Cause Title: Guru Milan Prasad vs State of UP
Click here to read/download the Judgment
