IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13779 of 2009 1. SHIW PARSAN TIWARY S/O- SRI RAM KRISHNA TIWARY VILL- SONAV, P.O- KHARENDA, P.S- BELAV, DISTT- KAIMUR------------ -------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, C.B.S.E, PRIT VIHAR, NEW DELHI 2. THE SECRETARY, C.B.S.E. PRIT VIHAR, NEW DELHI 3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE AT C.B.S.E. 35 B, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG, CIVIL LINE, ALLAHABAD 4. THE CHAIRMAN, MANAGING COMMITTEE, BAL VIKAS VIDYALAYA TOM ROAD, SASARAM, ROHTAS 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAL VIKAS VIDYALAYA TOM ROAD, SASARAM, ROHTAS 6. THE PRINCIPAL, BAL VIKAS VIDYALAYA TOM ROAD, SASARAM, ROHTAS-----------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Birju Prasad, Advocate For the CBSC: Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathi, Advocate ---------- 4 11.2.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the management of what is known as Bal Vikas Vidyalaya located at Sasaram. The managing committee in its meeting held on 2.4.2009 has resolved that the service of the petitioner was no longer required with immediate effect and this order has been communicated to him which has become the bone of grievance of the petitioner in the writ application. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment order in question is contrary to the rules and procedure laid down for imposition of any kind of punishment including the termination as it is an institution affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited many a decisions not only of this Court but also Hon’ble Supreme Court - 2 - to impress upon this Court that the writ can lie even against a private individual. None of the decisions cited by the counsel comes to the aid and assistance of the petitioner because in all those decisions the issue was not the decision of the private management but some decision taken by the government functionary arising out of the decision taken by the private management. Since the present case is not one of those cases and this is privately managed institution, therefore the remedy for the petitioner do not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But dismissal of the writ application does not mean that he does not have any civil right. He has liberty to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for proper declaration. This writ application as such is dismissed with liberty as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)