Writ jurisdiction over aided private schools applies where termination occurs without prior approval and a proper enquiry.

A private educational institution receiving limited grant-in-aid and performing a public function may be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where prior approval is required for appointment and removal. Termination without prior approval and without a departmental enquiry was treated as stigmatic and arbitrary, making the dismissal unsustainable. In those circumstances, the employee's reinstatement with back wages and consequential service benefits was upheld, and denial of back wages was rejected because the invalid dismissal could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition was maintainable against a private educational institution receiving grant-in-aid to a limited extent; (ii) whether the employee's termination, made without prior approval and without departmental enquiry, justified reinstatement with back wages.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition was maintainable against a private educational institution receiving grant-in-aid to a limited extent.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the institution performed a public duty that could be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that once approval was required for appointment, the absence of prior approval for removal was a material factor showing arbitrariness. It further distinguished decisions dealing with purely private schools where no comparable public law element or approval requirement was involved.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable against the school.

Issue (ii): whether the employee's termination, made without prior approval and without departmental enquiry, justified reinstatement with back wages.

Analysis: The termination was found to be stigmatic and arbitrary. The Court noted that no departmental enquiry was held and that the employee had served for several years before dismissal. In these circumstances, the termination could not be sustained, and the denial of back wages was rejected as the relief had to follow from the illegal and void order of dismissal.

Conclusion: The termination was illegal and void, and reinstatement with back wages was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the employee's reinstatement with consequential service benefits stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prior approval is required for appointment in a private educational institution performing a public function, termination without such approval and without a proper enquiry is arbitrary and can be challenged in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---