IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1510 of 2007 Date of decision : December 16, 2010 Smt. Nirmal Dhawan …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner had been appointed as Teacher in a School, run by Air Force School Management, Dalhousie, in the year 1982, and then made a Headmistress of that School, in the year 1983. She continued to serve in that School till June, 2007, when the said School was closed down. On account of the closure of the School, petitioner’s services were terminated. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking quashing of the order of closing down the School and in the alternative for issuance of a direction to the respondents to adjust her in some other School, run by them. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that the School had to be closed down, on account of financial constraints and the petitioner had been compensated by Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… being paid money equivalent to three months salary, at the time when her services were dispensed with. Petitioner has not stated that the order of dispensing with her services is invalid. She has challenged the decision to close down the School. Respondent-Management has taken the decision to close down the School, because of financial constraints as also on account of very low number of students admitted to the School. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the School has again been started and, therefore, respondents may be directed to re-employ the petitioner. Petitioner is now 57 years of age. She disclosed her age to be 54 years, when the writ petition was filed in September, 2007. Retirement age is supposed to be 58 years, for the teachers employed by the respondents. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to direct the respondents to re-employ the petitioner, especially when the respondent, i.e. the Management of the School, is not a State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed. December 16, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J