Allowed¶7

Purkal Youth Development Society v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Sept 2025WPMS/2584/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Sub Divisional Magistrate jurisdiction; Local Citizen Grievance Redressal Committee; unaided school; termination of teacher; reinstatement/restoration direction set aside; Education Tribunal remedy; District Judge Dehradun; T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002) 8 SCC 481; CBSE affiliation byelaws; no charge-sheet; Purkal Youth Development Society Dehradun; Kanchan Dhyani; two months' salary severance; WPMS/2584/2025; Uttarakhand High Court 2025; Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned communication dated 28.07.2025 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate set aside; respondent no. 6 left at liberty to approach the Education Tribunal/District Judge, Dehradun against her termination. ¶7

Purkal Youth Development Society Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:UHC:7921

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2584/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms. Madhu Negi Samant, Advocate for the petitioner.
			2. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 3.
			3. Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondent no. 5. 4. This writ petition has been filed by Purkal Youth Development Society, Dehradun, which runs an educational institution. Petitioner is aggrieved by a communication dated 28.07.2025, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehradun as Local Citizen Grievance Redressal
			Committee, Dehradun. By the said communication, Sub Divisional Magistrate has directed the Principal of the institution run by the petitioner to restore the position, which respondent no. 6 was enjoying earlier in the institution. The said communication is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that Sub Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue such direction and against termination of service of a teacher in an unaided school, the remedy available is to approach the Education Tribunal constituted in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

¶3

2025:UHC:7921

¶4

of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 . 5. Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for Central Board of Secondary Education submits that as per his instructions, the affiliation byelaws of CBSE were not followed while terminating the service of respondent no. 6 and no charge-sheet appears to have been issued to her. The termination order passed against respondent no. 6 is on record. The same was issued on 10.04.2025. The termination order is extracted below:“Ms. Kanchan Dhyani Date: April 10, 2025 Dehradun Sub: Service Discontinuation with PYDS Dear Ms. Kanchan This is with reference to the discussion around your proposed responsibilities, as well as the issues raised by you in this respect. Following our recent meeting on April 8, 2025, we have concerns regarding your lack of trust in the management of PYDS, and your unwillingness to teach assigned classes. Also, your conduct during the meeting was in violation of our Society's norms As a consequence of the above, we have reached a regretful decision that at this time we no longer have an option but to conclude your appointment with PYDS. In recognition of the long years of service put in by you, the Society will make you a payment equivalent to two months of your salary, less any advances taken by you. Upon satisfactory completion of your exit process, PYDS will also issue you a Letter of Experience in its normal format, confirming that you have served and exited in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Society. With best wishes, Anoop Seth Secretary” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatever was payable to respondent no. 6, including two months’ salary, has been paid to

¶5

2025:UHC:7921

¶6

her. She submits that since respondent no. 6 has already been terminated from service, therefore, the only remedy available to her is to approach the Education Tribunal and she approached a wrong forum and the SDM acted without jurisdiction while issuing the direction. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The direction issued by SDM to the Principal of the concerned institution is outside the scope of his powers. On this short point alone, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned communication dated 28.07.2025, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate is set aside. The respondent no. 6, however, shall be at liberty to approach the Education Tribunal/District Judge, Dehradun against termination of her service, if so advised. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.09 09:51:50 +05'30'

Purkal Youth Development Society v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purkal Youth Development Society v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Sahzad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vijay Khanduja Vs Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Praveen Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kartik Papnai Vs Union of India

Sanjay Pant Vs Uttarakhand Sachivalay Prashasan Vibhag