Grievances Pertaining To Internal Affairs Of Unaided Private Educational Institutions Not Amenable To Article 226 Jurisdiction : Gauhati High Court
On Friday, the Gauhati High Court observed that disputes pertaining to the internal affairs of an unaided private Educational Institution are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court clarified that a mandamus can be issued against such an institution only if it performs public function and the grievance relates to discharge...
On Friday, the Gauhati High Court observed that disputes pertaining to the internal affairs of an unaided private Educational Institution are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court clarified that a mandamus can be issued against such an institution only if it performs public function and the grievance relates to discharge of such public function.
Justice Michael Zothankhuma dismissed two writ petitions filed challenging termination of services, against an unaided private educational institution as not maintainable.
Factual Background
The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors at the Girijananda Choudhury Institute of Management & Technology, Hatkhowapara ("respondent institution") which is an unaided private institution. As per the appointment letter before terminating services the respondent institution was supposed to give one month's notice to the petitioners. Without giving notice, but a month's salary instead, the petitioners' services were terminated. Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were filed before the Gauhati High Court assailing the termination letters.
Issues
- Can the respondent institution be construed as State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
- Even if held otherwise, whether it can be held amenable as an authority under Article 226.
Contentions raised by the petitioners
Advocate, Mr. I.H. Saikia appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied on Ramesh Malwari v. State of Punjab And Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 331, Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015) 13 SCALE 622 and Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivans (2005) 6 SCC 657 to argue that the writ petitions were maintainable as the respondent institution performed public function by imparting education.
Contentions raised by the respondents
Placing reliance on the Committee of Management, Delhi Public School and Anr. v. M.K. Gandhi And Ors. (2015) 17 SCC 353, Trigun Chand Thakur v. State of Bihar And Ors. (2019) 7 SCC 513, Satimbla Sharma And Ors. v. St Paul's Senior Secondary School And Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 760 and M/s Rajlakshmi Drugs v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. And Ors. W.A. No. 329/2018, the Counsel appearing for the respondent institution argued that a writ petition would not lie against an unaided private institution. The same was asserted by Advocate, Mr. S. Bhuyan appearing for the State. Moreover, it was submitted that the termination of service of faculty members was not a public function. The institution being a non statutory body, a contract of personal service cannot be enforced against it in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Referring to the Full Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Abdul Gofur Mondal v. State of Assam (2015) 2 GLT 337, which was instrumental in establishing Educational Tribunals in Assam, the Counsel submitted that the petitioners should have approached the said Tribunal.
Analysis by the High Court
Considering the case laws relied upon by the parties, the Court noted that though a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private authority, it is imperative that it discharges public function and the impugned decision ought to be in discharge of such function. The Court observed that the respondent institution did impart education, which is a public function. However, the decision sought to be challenged is the termination of services of the petitioners, which is not in discharge of public function but pertains to service contract. Therefore, the Court held that the respondent institution was not amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court clarified -
"A body is said to be performing a public function when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so."
Again, the Court was of the opinion that because the Government has not intervened in the internal affairs of the respondent institution or in the process of appointment, it would not fall under the ambit of Article 12.
The Court placed reliance on the judgment of Abdul Gofur Mondal (supra), wherein the Full Bench of the High Court held -
"...the question as to whether a writ petition would be maintainable against the purely privately managed institutions, such as a venture school or a non-Government Educational Institution, would have to be determined with regard to whether the grievances expressed relate to discharge of public function and denial of any right in connection with public duty imposed on such body."
The Full Bench had directed the State to establish Educational Tribunals in the district of Assam to adjudicate disputes relating to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the non- government educational institution as well as disputes concerning disciplinary action and claim for provincialisation in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff. Noting that the present dispute pertains to internal affairs of an unaided private educational institution, the Court held that the same may be adjudicated before the Educational Tribunal.
Case Name: Mukti Nath Gogoi v. The State of Assam And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 3
Case No. and Date: W.P. (C) 5671 of 2018 | 21 Jan 2022
Corum: Justice Michael Zothankhuma