CWP No.13570 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.13570 of 1990 Date of decision May 6 , 2011 Lt. Col. Parupkar Singh Pannu ....... Petitioner Versus Lt. General BKN Chibber and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Pandit, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition is to quash the order terminating the petitioner from service as a Vice President of the Army School at Jalandhar. The contention is that he was an ex- Army Official and he was appointed as an Administrative Officer on 4.5.1986 and confirmed to the post in the year 1987. He was appointed as a Vice President on 16.6.1988. The order impugned in the writ petition is one issued on 6.10.1990 cryptically that his services were no longer required and the termination order also added a salary for two months in lieu of two month's notice stipulated in the terms and conditions of employment. The contention in the writ petition was that in terms of rule 3 of the terms and conditions a staff could be terminated from service by giving two month's CWP No.13570 of 1990 2 notice in advance or at the time of termination to be provided with salary in lieu of such notice. 2. The writ petition is resisted by the School Administration contending that the School is not a functionary of the State to be amenable for writ jurisdiction. It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act for the welfare of the family of the Army Personnel. It is contended in the reply to writ petition that no government grant or aid either by the State or the Central Government is given for running the School. It is also contended that the petitioner's service is purely contractual and any termination of service cannot be unauthorized through a writ petition. The petitioner had been provided two month's salary in lieu of notice and therefore the petitioner cannot have a relief in the writ petition. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. I have gone through the respective contentions in pleadings which I brought out as above. The petitioner cannot have a relief in the writ petition without establishing that the respondent school administration was an instrumentality of State. The exceptional interventions against private parties or societies would also be not required to be done since the petitioner's service was not governed by any statutory rules to avail to the petitioner a sure tenure of service without being terminated. If a termination had been made, it was non-stigmatic in character. It has also provided compensation for two month's salary as it should have been granted by the terms and conditions of the employment. 4. There is no scope for intervention in writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 6 , 2011 archana