Army Public Schools Are "Authority" Within Article 12 Of Constitution, Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Army Public Schools are an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.Referring to Urmila Chauhan v. The Chairman Army Public School and others, [2022], a division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Aman Chaudhary said, "it is held that the Army Public Schools are...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Army Public Schools are an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Referring to Urmila Chauhan v. The Chairman Army Public School and others, [2022], a division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Aman Chaudhary said, "it is held that the Army Public Schools are amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Army Public Schools are directly and substantially part of the Indian Army. Therefore, they are authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Army Public School is amenable to the writ jurisdiction."
The Court was hearing two appeals challenging the single bench decision, wherein the plea against an army public school was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
The appellants-petitioners, who were working in the Army Public Schools, through the aforesaid writ petitions, were seeking to quash the orders whereby their services have been terminated.
A single bench of the High Court had dismissed the petition stating that, “In the present case, concededly the respondent society has been created under Society Registration Act. The respondent body is neither directly nor indirectly controlled by Government. The society is free to make rules with respect to appointment, tenure and termination of its employees. The society is not bond to adopt rules and regulations made by State Government or Central Government with respect to its employees."
The counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Mrs. Revathi Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, [2022], wherein it had been held that a writ petition was maintainable against the schools run by the Army Welfare Education Society.
Further reference was made to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Urmila Chauhan's case, whereby respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization.
Considering the submissions, the division bench opined that, Army Public Schools "are authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Army Public School is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, this issue has already attained finality up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court."
In light of the above, the Court set aside the orders passed by the Single bench and remanded the matter to the Single Judge to decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law without going into the issue of maintainability.
Appearance: Onkar Singh, Advocate, for the appellant (in LPA-1476-2023).
Advocates Vikas Chatrath, Abhishek Singla, Sahil Kumar, BPS Thakur, and Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant (in LPA-98-2024).
Anita Balyan, Advocate, for the respondent-Union of India.
A.D.S. Jatana, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 37
Title: Reena Panta v. Union of India and others