HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT –A No. - 10033 of 2025 Avneet Kaur and 8 others …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. and 6 others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Abhinav Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi, Hridai Narain Pandey, Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Kumar Dhananjay, Pranjal Mehrotra Reserved on 14.10.2025 Delivered on 17.10.2025 Court No. - 32 HON’BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Manjooka and Sri Shantanu Pandey, Advocates holding brief of Sri Abhinav Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Kumar Dhananjay, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioners (9 in number) were Teachers (Women) at Uttarakhand Public School, Sector 56, Gautambudh Nagar (an Unaided Private School affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi). Petitioners were appointed by a due process on different dates, i.e., 03.07.2001, 04.04.2016, 19.01.1995, 01.07.2016, 18.07.2005, 12.02.2004, 02.07.2001, 11.02.2004 and 02.07.2001, respectively. 3. Petitioners were served with independent show cause notices issued between the month of March, 2025 to May, 2025 and they have submitted their respective reply within stipulated time, however, within a 2 WRIT-A NO. 10033 OF 2025 very short period by different orders their respective services were terminated admittedly without referring any reason whatsoever. 4. Petitioners have submitted their respective representation before Central Board of Secondary Education that due procedure was not followed. Their were some complaints also against Respondent-School and for that Respondent-CBSE admittedly has initiated inquiry, however, outcome of it is not on record. Petitioners have challenged their respective termination orders by means of present writ petition. 5. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel appearing Respondent-CBSE that CBSE or State has no role in appointment or termination of petitioners. He placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in St. Mary’s Education Society and another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others (Civil Appeal No. 5789 of 2022), decided on 24.08.2022 that such writ petitions are not maintainable, whereas learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Guru Milan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 3478 of 2024), decided on 10.05.2024 that even in such matters a writ petition is maintainable. 6. I have considered the above submissions and is of the opinion that so far as order of termination is concerned, writ petition is not maintainable since it is between petitioners and Respondent-School. However, still Court takes note that a notice was issued by Central Board of Secondary Education against Respondent-School that certain irregularities were found on an inspection of a two Member Committee and a notice was issued on 22.08.2025 to Respondent-School. Outcome of it is not on record. Therefore, Central Board of Secondary Education can also look into the matter about any irregularity or illegality committed during procedure adopted to terminate services of petitioners though the same is not part to the notice issued to the School. 7. In view of above, without issuing notice to Respondent-School, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that inquiry so initiated by Central Board of Secondary Education against the 3 WRIT-A NO. 10033 OF 2025 Respondent-School be concluded within a period of four weeks from today after considering the stand of the Respondent-School and in case said School does not submit any reply to notice within stipulated time, an ex parte decision can be taken. Respondent-CBSE while considering the aforesaid issue, will also consider the representations so filed by petitioners with regard to their termination from service. October 17, 2025 AK (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad