Writ petitions not maintainable against private unaided minority educational institutions for employee termination challenges

The SC held that writ petitions are not maintainable against private unaided minority educational institutions by employees challenging termination. While bodies performing public duties may be subject to writ jurisdiction, only decisions with public elements can be judicially reviewed. The court distinguished this case from precedents, noting that CBSE recognition does not create enforceable rights against management committees. Employees must approach CBSE or pursue other legal remedies for contract violations. The HC erred in allowing the writ petition against the private institution's disciplinary action.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a private unaided minority institution.
2. Adjudication of service disputes in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employee through a writ petition under Article 226.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of a Writ Petition Under Article 226 Against a Private Unaided Minority Institution
The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a private unaided minority institution. The Court noted that the Appellant No. 1, a private unaided minority educational institution, is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and not a statutory body. The Court cited several precedents, including *Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain* and *Km. Regina v. St. Aloysins High Elementary School*, to support the view that mere recognition or affiliation to CBSE does not confer statutory status or enforceable rights against the management of such institutions.

The Court concluded that while the CBSE affiliation byelaws govern the terms on which recognition is granted, enforcement of these rules is a matter between the government and the management, not enforceable by third parties such as employees. The Court referred to *Satimbla Sharma v. St. Pauls Senior Secondary School* and *K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage* to reinforce that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for enforcing private law rights against private entities unless there is a public law element involved.

Issue 2: Adjudication of Service Disputes in the Private Realm Through a Writ Petition Under Article 226
The Court examined whether service disputes between a private educational institution and its employee can be adjudicated through a writ petition under Article 226. The Court reiterated that judicial review under Article 226 is available primarily for enforcing public duties and not for private law disputes. The Court cited *Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan* and *Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. C.P. Sebastian* to clarify that the scope of mandamus is limited to enforcing public duties and cannot be used to enforce private contracts of personal service.

The Court referred to *Ramakrishnan Mission v. Kago Kunya* and *Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas* to emphasize that even if a private body performs public functions, a writ petition is maintainable only if the action challenged involves a public law element. The Court distinguished the case from *Marwari Balika Vidhyalaya v. Asha Shrivastava*, noting that in the latter, the removal of a teacher required state government approval, which was not the case here.

The Court concluded that the dispute regarding the termination of the Respondent No. 1's employment is a matter of private contract and does not involve any public law element. Therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the writ petition under Article 226 filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the private unaided minority institution was not maintainable as it sought to enforce a private contract of service without any public law element. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of maintainability. The Respondent No. 1 was advised to seek other legal remedies available under the law.

---