Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 01/07/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Eighteen Lower Division Teachers (LDT) of Salem English School, Raipur, including Sangeeta Tirkey, Sonia Thakur, Anjula Martin, Rupali Gwal Yadav, Rashmi Bala Jogi, Sanna Aijaz, Sangeeta Singh, Shailja Vaibhav Ephraim, Menika George, Jennet Ann Barren, Pratiksha Robins, Pravishant Saloman, Nivedita Ganguli, Deepmala John, Arshiya Qureshi, Shruti Wani, Rashmi George, Pushpa Parul Bennette.
  • Respondents: 1) Chhattisgarh Diocese Board Of Education, Church Of North India (through its Secretary); 2) The Principal, Salem English School; 3) The Collector, Raipur; 4) The District Education Officer, Raipur.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashment of the termination order dated 30‑04‑2026 issued by the Diocese Board.
  • Background: Petitioners were appointed on 24‑06‑2009 and served satisfactorily. Show‑cause notices dated 08‑04‑2026 and 20‑04‑2026 alleged misconduct; petitioners submitted detailed replies denying allegations. The Board terminated their services on 30‑04‑2026 without a departmental enquiry, witness examination, or proper hearing.
  • Petitioners' Submissions: The termination was arbitrary, mala fide, and violative of natural‑justice principles; the Board, though a private minority institution performing public functions, is amenable to writ jurisdiction per Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab.
  • Respondents' Submissions: The Board is not a "state" or instrumentality under Article 12; the dispute is a private service matter, outside the scope of writ jurisdiction.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court examined precedents (Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Shaheed Begum v. Principal, Army School, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi) and concluded that the Board lacks deep, pervasive governmental control and does not perform functions closely connected with governmental activities. Hence, the grievance falls within private employment law, not public duty, and writ jurisdiction is inapplicable.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Petitioners are free to pursue any other legal remedy available under law.

Topics: Writ Jurisdiction, Private Educational Employment