news details |
|
|
| HC rules No Writ for Private School Job Row | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Jan 29: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by Malika challenging the July 2023 select list of Primary Teachers (PRT) issued by Maharaja Hari Singh DAV Centenary Public School, Akhnoor, holding that such service-related disputes in a private unaided school largely fall in the domain of private law.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while deciding WP(C) No. 2193/2023 (pronounced on 27.01.2026), noted that the petitioner had sought quashing of the selection list and also a direction to allow her to continue as PRT and not be replaced by another contractual teacher.
As per the petition, Malika claimed she joined the school on 04.04.2014 as a PRT and had about nine years of service. She stated that after responding to recruitment notices in 2023 and appearing before the selection committee, her name did not figure in the select list and she was placed in the waiting list. She also alleged that several selected candidates lacked requisite qualifications, including B.Ed/CTET.
The UT of J&K and the CBSE Chairman filed replies stating they were not concerned with the selection process, and raised an objection that the writ petition against the school was not maintainable.
The school management (respondents 3 & 4) opposed the plea, arguing the employee-school relationship is contractual and therefore within private law, relying on earlier court rulings. It further said the petitioner was engaged session-wise on contract and it was the selection committee's prerogative to appoint candidates based on merit/performance.
The Court observed that while a private body may be amenable to writ jurisdiction in limited situations, judicial review is confined to actions involving a public duty element, not matters of private service rights.
Holding that selection of teachers by a private unaided school results in a contract of service, the Court said such private rights cannot be enforced through a writ petition against an institution that is neither the State nor its instrumentality.
Referring to binding precedents, the Court concluded the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it, while leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate alternative remedy. —(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
