The Calcutta High Court held on Tuesday that a private unaided education institution is subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that a school run by the Army Welfare Education Society falls within the scope of State under Article 12 of the Constitution (Bineeta Patnaik Padhi v. Union of India & Ors.). The school, even if unaided, fulfils a public responsibility imposed on it by the Right to Education (RTE) Act and West Bengal Right to Education (WBRTE) Rules, according to single-judge Justice Shekhar B Saraf. "In my opinion, such a public obligation is imposed in terms of both Article 21A of the Indian Constitution and the RTE Act, which gave effect to the fundamental right in clear words," the Court stated. As a result, the Court determined that the Army Welfare Education Society's school falls within the definition of "state" under Article 12. However, the Court clarified that, even if an authority is deemed to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, constitutional courts must first satisfy themselves that the challenged authority's action is part of public law rather than private law before issuing any writ, particularly a mandamus. The ruling came after a plea of maintainability was made in response to Bineeta Patnaik Padhi's petition contesting her firing as extended probationer from the post of Principal of Army Public School in Panagarh. She went to court, claiming that her dismissal was a violation of both her constitutional and statutory rights. The Army Welfare Education Society was admittedly in charge of the school (AWES). Padhi's lawyer, Sonal Sinha, argued that schools under the AWES had to follow the RTE Act, the WBRTE Rules, and the Central Bureau of Secondary Education's Affiliation bye-laws. Padhi's service, she argued, was governed by the RTE Act and not solely a private contract of employment between the school and the petitioner. The Central government's attorney, Additional Solicitor General YJ Dastoor, argued that neither fundamental or statutory rights were violated in this case. Dastoor said that the AWES schools did not get any funding from the federal or state governments, and that the society instead got monies from various army units. As a result, Dastoor contended that the school could not be classified as a "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. He went on to say that the guidelines established by the AWES are not statutory in nature. As a result, he argued that a constitutional court's power under Article 226 could only be utilised if public law was involved. In the absence of a statutory necessity, the appropriate remedy is not to submit a writ application if a contract of employment cannot generally be enforced against an employer. Instead, he stated, the party who has been harmed must seek for damages in a civil court with adequate authority. The RTE Act's legislative goal, according to the Court, was to ensure that teachers were not left in the lurch and that their problems in schools were addressed. The Court determined that the specific grievance redress processes given under Sections 23 and 24 of the RTE Act, as well as Rule 17 of the WBRTE, did indeed control Padhi's contract of service, making this a suitable case for judicial review. Furthermore, because the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act had not yet been notified, the Court determined that Padhi's only effective option was to file a writ case. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava [(2020) 14 SCC 449] in determining whether the school would be state-run. In that case, the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation in which an Assistant Teacher employed for profit in a private unaided educational institution was fired by stigmatic order without first obtaining the approval of relevant authorities or conducting a disciplinary investigation. In that case, the Court concluded that a writ application can be filed even against private unaided educational institutions. The issue of a private unaided educational institute being amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court is no longer res integra, the Court ruled, in light of the law enunciate down in Asha Srivastava. "In accordance with Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, the law laid down in Asha Srivastava now binds all High Courts to give effect to it. Furthermore, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Roychan Abraham had relied on Ramesh Ahluwalia to reach the conclusion that private institutions imparting education to students were performing a public function and thus were subject to the Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, based on a reference made by a learned Single Judge "According to the order. The Court emphasised that the institution had come to fulfil a public responsibility imposed on it by the Right to Education, even if it was unassisted. As a result, the Court dismissed the preliminary objection based on the writ application's maintainability. "Finally, the Respondent authorities have four weeks from the date of this judgement to file their affidavits-in-opposition. If the writ petitioner wishes to file affidavits-in-reply, the affidavits-in-reply must be filed within two weeks "It had been requested.