- (1.) The Committee of Management, Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School. Meerut, Respondent no, 1. runs a Public School, known as Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School. Meerut Cantt. Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the 'School'). It is a private unaided school. This school is affiliated to the Central Board of secondary education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CBSE) and is a recognised institution.
(2.) The Petitioner, Mrs Harbans Kaur, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school on 2-7-1978 to teach Primary Sections. She was confirmed as Teacher on 27-11-1981. In view of the good work and teaching experience of the Petitioner, she was appointed as Teacher in T.G. T. grade with effect from 2-4-1985 on regular basis by Respondent No. 1. All along, she discharged her duties as Teacher satisfactorily. On 1-9-1990, she was served with a letter terminating her services on the grounds that her work was unsatisfactory and that she did not possess requisite qualifications for the post She was never served with any charge-sheet and was also not afforded any opportunity to show-cause against the termination order. In the circumstances, as alleged by the Petitioner, the termination order was illegal It also cast stigma on the Petitioner. It is this termination order that has been challenged by the Petitioner in this writ petition.
(3.) The writ petition was contested by the Committee of Management, Respondent No. 1 and also by the Principal Respondent No. 1. The main contenttion of the Respondents is that the Petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of a trained Graduate teacher She was placed on probation and was never confirmed. The services of the Petitioner were purely contractual and the contract of personal service could not specifically be enforced. The maintainability of the writ petition was also challenged on the ground that Respondent No. 1 was not a statutory body. In her rejoined affidavit, the Petitioner reiterated that she was governed by the bye-laws framed by the CBSE which is a statutory body. Her services had been terminated in violation of bye-laws and so the present writ petition against the Respondents was maintainable, despite the fact that Respondent No. 1 is a private body.;