Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.N. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.B. Singh, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Udai Pratap Singh for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri H.N. Pandey, the learned Counsel for the Central Board of Secondary Education.
(2.) The petitioner is working as a teacher in Air Force School, Bamrauli, district Allahabad. It is alleged that this school is managed by the Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act and is also affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Eduction. The Society, which is running this school, has framed an "Education Code Air Force School 2005" for effective management and control of the Air Force School. The petitioner submits that from a perusal of this Education Code, the pervasive control vests with the Government. The Officers managing the school and the society are airmen and therefore, the Society as well as the School managed by them, comes within the meaning of the word "State" as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore the writ petition is maintainable against the said respondents.
(3.) The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a teacher in the year 1993 and is now the senior most teacher in the said school. It transpires that the petitioner was directed to officiate as the Principal by a letter dated 31.3.2003 issued by the Wing Commander/the Officer Incharge of the School. A perusal of this letter dated 31,3.2003 [a copy of which has been enclosed as Anenxure-9 in the writ petition No. 19915 of 2006] indicates that the petitioner was permitted to work as an Officiating Principal for assessing his ability for the post of Principal for an academic session and if found fit, he could be issued an appointment letter as a Principal on a probation for one year and thereafter his services would be confirmed on the basis of his performance. The said letter also indicated that an advertisement was required to be made in the local newspaper for filling up the post of Principal. It was contended that an advertisement was issued on 4.5.2003 for filling up the post of Principal and, based on this advertisement, the petitioner applied. It further transpires that the Selection Board after interviewing all the candidates recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Principal It is alleged that the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 and the respondent No. 6, namely, Smt. Shalini Kaul was placed at Serial No. 2 of the select list. The petitioner in paragraph-13 of the writ petition further alleged that a Note was placed on the file by the Officer Incharge to the effect that 'The Commerce PGT was officiating as Principal has been selected for the post of Principal". The petitioner submitted that based on this Note the petitioner was allowed to continue as the Principal in a permanent capacity even though no formal letter of appointment was issued. However, the management issued a second advertisement in the Employment News in January 2004 and that a call letter was sent to the petitioner by the management requesting him to appear in the interview, even though, the petitioner had not applied. It was further alleged that thereafter without any issuance of an appointment letter, the respondent No. 6 was placed in the chair of the Principal and the petitioner was ousted from the post of Principal.;