Army Public Schools Are Not 'State' Under Article 12, Employment Disputes Not Maintainable Under Writ Jurisdiction: J&K High Court

Consequently, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal clarified that employment disputes concerning APS teachers, governed by private contractual terms, cannot be challenged through writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The court emphasised,

“The roles of an educational institution impact various facets of public life, and if these roles are considered public obligations/duties, they may be contested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, actions or decisions executed under a standard employment contract that lack statutory support cannot be contested under Article 226”

Background:

The petition was filed by four teachers who were appointed in APS Udhampur following their selection in an open recruitment process in 2022 and were assailing their termination orders, issued in February 2024, terming them unjustified as no adverse reports or disciplinary actions were on record against them.

The petitioners submitted that other teachers hired under the same advertisement notice for APS Dhar Road had not been terminated and sought reinstatement, continuation of their services, release of salaries, and benefits, and requested the quashing of their termination orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice.

The petitioners argued that APS, being engaged in the public duty of imparting education, qualifies as a "State" under Article 12. Hence, the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226.

The respondents contended that APS and AWES function under private law and are not subject to writ jurisdiction. Arguing that the employment relationship with APS is purely contractual they maintained that the petitioners' termination was valid under the probationary rules, which allow termination without cause, provided notice is given.

Key Legal Issues:

In its effort to fairly adjudicate the matter the court identified three main questions for adjudication:

1. Does AWES qualify as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution?
2. Can a private employment contract between AWES and teachers be enforced through writ jurisdiction?
3. Was the termination of the petitioners justified given the absence of adverse reports or disciplinary proceedings?

Court's Observations and Findings:

Addressing the question as to Whether AWES is a 'State' under Article 12 Justice Nargal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Army Welfare Education Society vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024), ruled that AWES and APS are not instrumentalities of the State under Article 12. Although APS performs the public function of imparting education, its relationship with its employees is governed by private law, the court maintained.

The court added,

“In such instances, the aggrieved party may pursue remedies via the relevant legal forum, which may encompass damages, specific performance, or other equitable remedies, contingent upon the nature of the breach and applicable law, rather than as a basis for this Court's interference by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution under the pretext of executing a public duty”

Dealing with the second question of whether a private contract can be enforced via writ jurisdiction the court emphasized that disputes arising from private employment contracts do not fall under the ambit of Article 226 unless a statutory element is involved.

Justice Nargal noted,

“Grievances related to personal wrongs or violations of private contracts, without any public aspect, cannot be addressed through a writ petition under Article 226. Judicial intervention in these instances has occurred solely when the service conditions were regulated by statutory regulations, when the employer was classified as the 'State.'”

The court further clarified that APS may be performing a public role by providing education, but the dispute in question revolved around the termination of the petitioners' services, which was contractual in nature.

The court explained,

"This signifies that for a decision to be implemented, it must pertain to the execution of a public function. Although the respondent aims to deliver education, acknowledged as a public role, the current problem is the termination of the Petitioner's services, which is essentially a contractual matter."

Justice Nargal underscored that while the petitioners' claims could not be entertained under Article 226, they were free to seek remedies under other legal forums.

Commenting on the termination of the petitioners given the absence of adverse reports or disciplinary proceedings the court acknowledged that the petitioners had clean service records, with one of them receiving a "Best Teacher" award. Despite this, the AWES regulations allow termination during probation without cause, provided notice is given, it frowned.

“In the absence of any adverse report or pending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioners as per Rule 132 (C) of the Army Welfare Education Society Rules and Regulations, what justification did the respondent authorities have for not extending the petitioners probation period or terminating their services without any substantial reasons”, the court wondered.

Ruling that the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, it dismissed the same. However, the court left open the option for the petitioners to pursue remedies through other appropriate legal forums.

“This Court is not making any determination about the termination of the petitioners' services; the issue is left open to be addressed by the competent authorities if the petitioners pursue it before the relevant forum.", the court concluded.

Case Title: Shivali Sharma Vs Army Public School Through Its President AWES

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 288

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment