Writ Petition By Teachers Not Maintainable Against Private School Over Service Disputes : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution couldn't be entertained against a private education society for adjudication of private service disputes.The Court also held that the Army Welfare Education Society cannot be considered as "State" under Article 13 of the Constitution.Setting aside the High Court judgment, the bench comprising Justices JB...
The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution couldn't be entertained against a private education society for adjudication of private service disputes.
The Court also held that the Army Welfare Education Society cannot be considered as "State" under Article 13 of the Constitution.
Setting aside the High Court judgment, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said :
“We are of the view that the High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents (private teachers) herein holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the school run by the Appellant Society imparts education. Imparting education involves public duty and therefore public law element could also be said to be involved. However, the relationship between the respondents herein and the appellant society is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract. If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element. The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents.”,
The Court clarified that although a writ jurisdiction could not be invoked against the private institution for adjudication of a private dispute, there is no bar for the High Court to entertain Writ Petitions under Article 226 against the private authority if an authority violates the fundamental right or other legal rights of any person or citizen.
The Court took a cue from a case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V. R. Rudani & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 691, wherein the Court spelled out two exceptions to the writ of mandamus. The Court said if the rights are pure of a private character, and if the management of the college is purely a private body “with no public duty”, then mandamus against the private body would not lie.
Employees Of Private Unaided Institution Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction For Resolving Service Dispute Not Governed By Statutory Provisions
The Court said that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked by the private persons against the private unaided institution for resolving the service-related disputes unless the services rendered by the private persons were governed by the Statutory provisions.
A reference was drawn from a case of St. Mary's Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors., wherein it was held that while a private unaided minority institution might be touching the spheres of public function by performing a public duty, its employees have no right of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provision.
In essence, the Court observed that an individual wrong or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a petition under Article 226.
Also from the judgment- Supreme Court Explains Features Of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mr. Anand Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv. Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Adv.
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Mr. Aayush, Adv. Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv. Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
Case Details: ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY NEW DELHI Versus SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7256-7259 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 464