YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Kumar for the respondent No. 4, Sri H.N. Pandey for the Board and Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for NTPC.
(2.) The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the same would not be maintainable since the petitioner assails an order of termination made by the D.A.V. Public School. It is submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the school may be said to be performing a public function or discharging a public duty since the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner are not governed by any statutory rule or regulation, a writ petition consequently would not lie. Reliance is placed principally on the Full Bench decision of the Court in M.K. Gandhi and Others Vs. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow and Others. The attention of the Court is then drawn to a recent decision rendered by another Full Bench in Roychan Abraham Vs. State of U.P. and Others in support of the objection that is raised. Counsel for the C.B.S.E. submits that the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner are governed by the byelaws framed by the Board which are not statutory and in light of the decision in M.K. Gandhi, the writ petition would not lie.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the D.A.V. Public School is funded and aided by N.T.P.C. which is a Government Corporation and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. He submits that N.T.P.C. has set up and established schools in order to provide educational avenues to the wards of its employees and those of the C.I.S.F. personnel employed in its establishment. He submits that in light of the financial and administrative aid which is provided, it must be held to be performing a public function and consequently a writ petition would be maintainable. Apart from relying upon the ultimate conclusions recorded by the Full Bench in Roychan Abraham, learned counsel also places reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab And Others to submit that the aforesaid decision would clearly merit the objection as raised being negatived.;