The President has appointed 8 new judges in the Allahabad High Court. Information to this effect was released by the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Rajinder Kashyap today. A copy of their appointment has been sent to all the newly appointed judges.
All of them have been appointed as Additional Judges for two years. The calculation of two years will be applicable from the date of his assumption of charge. All the newly appointed judges have been advocates of High Court Allahabad and Lucknow Benches. The names of the appointed Additional Judges are as follows. Chandra Kumar Rai, Krishna Pahal, Sameer Jain, Ashutosh Srivastava, Subhash Vidyarthi, Brijraj Singh, Shri Prakash Singh and Vikas Wednesday.
It is to be known that a total of 13 names were recommended by the Supreme Court to be appointed judges in the Allahabad High Court. Out of these 13 names, the government had sent a recommendation for appointment on only 8 names to the President.
Petition maintainable against private schools performing public responsibility under public law
The Allahabad High Court has observed in a significant judgment that there is a thin line of division between public liability and personal liability. The determination of which will depend on the nature of the work. Two elements are necessary for the criterion of public and individual work. The first person or authority performing an act of public duty. The second act is being done within the ambit of public law and not the common law. any legal authority, the petition against him does not become maintainable.
Similarly, a petition cannot be made in a matter of contract between the parties even if they are government authorities. The petition shall be maintainable only if the public act or obligation is being performed under the public law. The court said that if the public obligation is being performed under the common law, then the petition will not be issued. To issue a petition, it is necessary that the person or authority is performing a public obligation under public law.
This decision has been given by a three-member full bench of Acting Chief Justice MN Bhandari, Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh while redressing the question of law referred to on the petition of Uttam Chand Rawat. The legal question before the full bench was whether the private educational institutions are performing the functions of the state while fulfilling the public responsibility and whether a petition can be filed against them or not? With this decision, the full bench has sent the matter back to the single bench for decision.
The single bench had sent the question of law to the full bench for decision regarding the difference of opinion in various judicial decisions. The question was whether the petition against the private colleges doing the work of the state for imparting education is maintainable or not. There were conflicting decisions on this issue.
Providing education is the responsibility of the government and private colleges are fulfilling the responsibility of the state. This is a public obligation. The full bench, after perusing all the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, said that the petition can be against the government and private institution, the condition will be that what is the nature of its work. If it is a public act under public law then a petition can be filed. If there is a public act but the work is being done under the common law, the petition is not maintainable.