On October 16, 2025, the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed seven petitions filed by former Army Public School employees who had challenged their terminations through writs. The court held that schools run by the Army Welfare Education Society are not considered "State" under Article 12 and therefore are not subject to writ jurisdiction. The institutions are registered under the Societies Registration Act, receive no government grant, and function without administrative control from the State. Aggrieved staff were advised to pursue remedies before labour or civil courts instead. This ruling indicates that employment disputes in private schools and trusts will likely be handled in private-law forums.
For teachers and non-teaching staff suddenly out of work, this ruling is a setback. The writ route often feels like the only "fast lane" when livelihoods are at stake; being rerouted to labour/civil courts can feel like starting over—with months of uncertainty, costs, and emotional strain. Principals and management committees will face a challenging atmosphere: alumni, parents, and staff expect higher ethical standards from institutions teaching values to children. Many ex-employees will still ask: why was due process not followed, why were reasons opaque, and why was progressive discipline absent? A lack of explanation fuels mistrust.
Compliance-wise, the ruling doesn’t absolve poor process—it just shifts venues. HR must tighten contracts, service rules, inquiry procedures, and documentation trails that will withstand industrial/labour court scrutiny (domestic inquiries, natural justice, progressive discipline). Governing bodies should re-educate line managers on show-cause notices, speaking orders, and timelines. Schools with charitable status also face reputational audits by stakeholders; opaque terminations can boomerang into fee and admissions backlash. Proactively offering mediation, severance clarity, or redeployment can shrink litigation risk while signaling institutional conscience.
If you were counsel to a private school, what due-process step would you mandate before any termination? How can school HR maintain trust with parents and students when employee disputes become public?
For teachers and non-teaching staff suddenly out of work, this ruling is a setback. The writ route often feels like the only "fast lane" when livelihoods are at stake; being rerouted to labour/civil courts can feel like starting over—with months of uncertainty, costs, and emotional strain. Principals and management committees will face a challenging atmosphere: alumni, parents, and staff expect higher ethical standards from institutions teaching values to children. Many ex-employees will still ask: why was due process not followed, why were reasons opaque, and why was progressive discipline absent? A lack of explanation fuels mistrust.
Compliance-wise, the ruling doesn’t absolve poor process—it just shifts venues. HR must tighten contracts, service rules, inquiry procedures, and documentation trails that will withstand industrial/labour court scrutiny (domestic inquiries, natural justice, progressive discipline). Governing bodies should re-educate line managers on show-cause notices, speaking orders, and timelines. Schools with charitable status also face reputational audits by stakeholders; opaque terminations can boomerang into fee and admissions backlash. Proactively offering mediation, severance clarity, or redeployment can shrink litigation risk while signaling institutional conscience.
If you were counsel to a private school, what due-process step would you mandate before any termination? How can school HR maintain trust with parents and students when employee disputes become public?