Govt Recognised Private Schools May Fall Under Writ Jurisdiction, But Writ Of Mandamus Limited To Public Law Actions: J&K High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that while unaided private educational institutions recognized by the government or affiliated to statutory boards may qualify as “public authorities” amenable to writ jurisdiction, a writ of mandamus can only be issued if the actions of such institutions fall within the domain of public law rather than private law.A bench of...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that while unaided private educational institutions recognized by the government or affiliated to statutory boards may qualify as “public authorities” amenable to writ jurisdiction, a writ of mandamus can only be issued if the actions of such institutions fall within the domain of public law rather than private law.
A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Mohammad Yousuf Wani made these observations while hearing a case that arose from a writ petition filed by one Satvinder Singh, a teacher at Presentation Convent Senior Secondary School, challenging his termination. The Single Judge had directed the school to reinstate him and either resume or initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Rules, 2007.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the school filed a Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the writ was not maintainable. The school's counsel argued that disputes rooted in private employment contracts do not warrant writ jurisdiction under Article 226. They emphasized that the relationship between the teacher and the institution was purely contractual and lacked a public element.
The respondent's counsel asserted that as a teacher in a private institution imparting education, the respondent performed a public duty. They invoked Section 20 of the School Education Act, 2002, arguing that the disengagement of staff required adherence to prescribed terms and conditions, which were allegedly absent.
Court's Observations:
Elucidating the mandate of the Writ of mandamus and when it could be issued the court stated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 applies to any person or body performing public duties, irrespective of their form. The nature of the duty is pivotal, and it need not necessarily be statutory and it could stem from a charter, common law, custom, or contract, the court underscored.
It added,
“The words “any person or authority” used in Article 226 of the Constitution are not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. The writ under Article 226 would lie against any other person or body performing public duty. It is not the form of the body concerned that is much relevant. What is relevant, however, is the nature of duty imposed on such body. Mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that duty to be enforced is not one that is imposed by the statute”
Commenting on the threshold for Mandamus Issuance the court observed,
"For issuance of writ of mandamus to an authority, it must be demonstrated that such authority is not only performing a public duty but doing a particular thing in a particular manner and it has failed in the performance of such public duty. There must be a public element or integral part thereof in the action of such authority."
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bargava (2022), the court underscored that actions emanating from private law, such as employment disputes, cannot invoke writ jurisdiction unless tied directly to public duties.
Observing that the mere fact that an Institute is recognized by the Government or is affiliated to a statutory board will not alter the position the court remarked,
"Mere fact that appellant Institute is recognized by the Government or is affiliated to a statutory board will not alter the position. An unaided private educational institution may qualify to be a 'Public authority' amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court, however, a mandamus will not be issued unless action of such authority complained of falls in the domain of public law as distinguished from private law."
Pointing out the absence of statutory prescription in the case at hand the court explicitly stated,
"There is also no provision under School Education Act, 2002 which provides that for engagement and disengagement of teaching and non-teaching staff in the school, approval of the Director School Education is a sine qua non. In the absence of any such statutory prescription, the writ court could not have issued mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner."
In alignment with these observations the court allowed the appeal and thus set aside the Single Judge's order.
Case Title: Presentation Convent Senior Secondary School Vs Satvinder Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 311