Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of the respondent school on 30 June, 1998. Her service as Assistant Teacher was made permanent in 2002. She was appointed as Assistant Headmistress of the respondent school on 28 October, 2014 by the Managing Committee of the School.
(2.) Another teacher of the said school made a complaint to the Managing Committee alleging irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Headmistress. The Managing Committee called for an explanation from the petitioner which was found to be dissatisfactory. The Managing Committee then issued a letter dated 1 September, 2018 which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The impugned letter reads as follows:- The explanation of yours, related to the allegation made by Rupali Ghosh about the procedure of the recruitment as an Asst. Headmistress and your pay structure as an AHM, is found dissatisfactory to the Managing Committee. It is verified by the M. C. that the procedure of your recruitment as AHM is totally illegal and the created scale of the AHM is found to be ridiculous and baseless. You are therefore requested to return back the extra amount drawn by you as AHM (amounted approx. 1,50,000) within 7 days from the receipt of this letter. To know the exact amount you may contact the undersigned. If you fail to return back the said amount within stipulated date disciplinary action will be taken against you."
(3.) Appearing for the respondent school, Mr. Bari, learned Counsel took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, he submitted that the respondent school is a private institution run by the Managing Committee of the school. It is self-financed and does not receive any aid/grant/support from the Government. The State Government has no control, far less, deep and pervasive control over the school. The appointment of teachers is done by private contract and does not require any sanction or approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The respondent school is not 'State' or 'Other Authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the respondent school.;