2025:UHC:5917-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/260/2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. There is no representation for petitioner. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the respondents. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Principal in Oxford School of Excellence, Dalanwala, Dehradun w.e.f. 16.03.2020. Her services were however terminated by Director of the School vide order dated 10.06.2021. Thus feeling aggrieved by her termination, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.6.2021 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent school. b. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to forthwith reinstate the services of the petitioner on the post of Principal. c. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to forthwith pay the entire dues/withheld salary and allowances of the petitioner and further to pay her salary and allowances month to month in accordance with the agreed salary at the time of appointment.” 3. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to para 4 of the affidavit dated 09.10.2022, filed by Bimal Kishore Thapliyal on behalf of the school. By referring to said para, Mr. Pradhan submits that entire dues of the petitioner have been cleared by the school management and nothing now remains to be paid. 2025:UHC:5917-DB 4. He further submits that Oxford School of Excellence is an unaided school receiving no financial aid from State or Central Government, therefore it is not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution, therefore, writ petition would not be maintainable. 5. He submits that petitioner has remedy of approaching Educational Tribunal established in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 355. 6. We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Since petitioner was employed as Principal in a private educational institution which is not receiving any financial aid from the Government, therefore, management of the school is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. In such view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Educational Tribunal, if so advised. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.07.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8 c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35D C4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.07.10 10:17:55 +05'30' 2025:UHC:5917-DB