Writ Petition Raising Service Disputes Not Maintainable Against Private Educational Institution: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the employees of a private educational institution do not have the right to invoke the writ powers of the High Court in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while denying relief to...
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the employees of a private educational institution do not have the right to invoke the writ powers of the High Court in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions.
The bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while denying relief to the petitioner, one Devesh Verma, who was removed from the post of Lecturer in Christ Church College, Lucknow in July 1992 after he misbehaved with the college principal.
The petitioner had moved an intra-court appeal before the division bench after his plea was dismissed by Single Judge in September 2017
Relying upon Apex Court’s ruling in the case of St. Mary's Educational institute vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708, the division bench upheld the order of the single judge, passed in September 2017.
The Division bench agreed with the view taken by the single judge that a Writ Petition filed by a former teacher against the private unaided minority institution challenging the order of his termination and seeking restitution of his service, is not maintainable.
The case in brief
The Petitioner/appellant had filed the Writ Petition pleading that he was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics in the Christ Church College and he had joined his duties on October 7, 1991.
On March 31, 1992, the Principal of the College lodged an FIR under Sections 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code against him and he was arrested on July 16, 1992.
Though he was granted bail the same day, he was not allowed to resume his duties at the College.
Ultimately, in May 1996, he got acquitted in the case and after that, when he went to resume his duties at the College, he was told that another person had been appointed in his place and his services had come to an end automatically with effect from July 17, 1992, a day after his arrest.
Challenging the said oral termination of his services on the ground that before dispensing with his services, no approval was obtained under Section 16 G (3) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 the appellant/petitioner moved the Single Judge.
The Single judge dismissed his plea on the ground that Section 16 G (3) of the 1921 Act are not applicable to minority institutions. The Single judge also observed that the writ petition filed against a private minority institution is not maintainable.
Challenging the single judge’s order, the appellant moved the instant plea arguing that since the College is engaged in imparting education to the children, which is a public duty, therefore, the writ petition filed against such an institution would be maintainable.
Court’s observations
At the outset, the Court took into account the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of St. Mary's Educational Institute (supra), wherein it was categorically laid down that “while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions.
In this case, it was further held by the Top Court that the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognized as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Further, taking note of the facts of the case, the Court said that the Writ Petition would not maintainable for one more reason that there are several disputed questions of fact involved in the case.
“Whether or not the appellant was duly selected and appointed, and what were his service conditions, are facts which are in dispute and regarding which no material is available on record. For this reason, also, the Writ Petition would not be maintainable,” the Court said.
Against this backdrop, the Division bench dismissed the Special Appeal while agreeing with the view taken by the single judge in its 2017 order.
Appearances
Counsel for Appellant: Ramesh Chandra Saxena, Gaurav Saxena
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., Jai Pratap Singh
Case title - Devesh Verma vs. Christ Church College Throu Principal Hazratganj Lko.And Ors [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 2 of 2018]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 9