WP/3739/2011 of ELIZABETH CHANDRA Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY on 30 September 2026

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.

2. The petitioner, by the present writ petition, has sought a direction to the respondents to treat her service from April 2011 till May 2013 as regular service and to pay the consequential benefits to which she is entitled. She had also sought an interim direction to permit her to continue in service in the fifth respondent School till 31.05.2013, pending disposal of the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the fourth respondent Society, which runs Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as the said respondent is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Particularly in relation to service dispute, between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as such dispute do not come within the purview of public duty or public function.

4. The learned counsel further submits that this Court, in its order dated 07.02.2019 in W.P.Nos.4246 to 4248 of 2018, had held that in respect of a private school, no writ petition can be entertained and granted liberty to the petitioners therein to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievances.

5. The learned counsel further submits that a Division Bench of this Court, The Chairman, HVF English Medium Educational Society, Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, H.V.F. Estate, Avadi, Chennai and one Anr., vs. R. Thirunavukarasu and 3 Ors., (W.A.No.2887 of 2023, decided on 02.09.2026), has held that Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, being run by a Society is a private management and is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench however, granted liberty to the employee therein to approach the competent forum for appropriate relief.

6. Further, the issue concerning the status of the School run by a Society like the fourth respondent Society was also considered by this Court in W.P.No.2422 of 2017. By order dated 21.09.2026, this Court, following the aforesaid Division Bench judgment and also referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma and others, 2024 INSC 501, held that a service dispute arising from the relationship between the private School and its employee cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. The relevant portion of the said Judgement of the Apex Court reads as follows:- “57. In view of the aforesaid, nothing more is required to be discussed in the present appeals. We are of the view that the High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents herein holding that the appellant Society is “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the school run by the appellant society imparts education. Imparting education involves public duty and therefore public law element could also be said to be involved. However, the relationship between the respondents herein and the appellant Society is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract. If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element. The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents.”

7. Further, the petitioner, by the present writ petition had sought a direction to treat her service as regular and to pay consequential benefits, for the period from April 2011 till May 2013, has lapsed long since, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition has also become infructuous.

8. In view of the aforestated position of law, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted any relief in the present writ petition and has to approach the competent forum for redressal of her grievance.

9. Thus, challenge the claim for regular service and consequential benefits on merits is therefore left open.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent forum for appropriate relief in the event of cause surviving. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 30-09-2026 (3/3) Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Case Citation: Yes/No KLT

To

1. The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, PS-1-2, Institutional Area, I.P. Extn., Patparangj, Delhi – 110092. Having its regional office at Plot No.1630 A, “J” Block, 16th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 40.

2. The Director General, Ordinance Factory Board, Esplanade East, Calcutta-700069.

3. The General Manager,

Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai-54.

4. The Secretary, HVF English Medium Educational Society, Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, Near EME Lines, HVF Estate, Avadi, Chennai-54.

5. The Secretary, Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, Near EME Lines, HVF Estate, Avadi, Chennai-54.

T.VINOD KUMAR, J. KLT WP No. 3739 of 2011 and MP No. 1 of 2011 30-09-2026 (3/3)