2022 (8) TMI 1528 - SC - Indian Laws

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

St. Marys Education Society and Ors. Versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors.

The SC held that writ petitions are not maintainable against private unaided minority educational institutions by employees challenging termination. While ... Maintainability of writ petition filed by an employee of a private unaided minority educational institution seeking to challenge his termination from service - even if a body performing public duty is amenable to writ jurisdiction, are all its decisions subject to judicial review or only those decisions which have public element therein can be judicially reviewed under the writ jurisdiction? HELD THAT:- The contention canvassed by the Respondent No. 1 is that a Writ Petition is maintainable against the Committee of Management controlling the affairs of an institution (minority) run by it, if it violates any Rules and byelaws laid down by the CBSE. First, as discussed above, the CBSE itself is not a statutory body nor the Regulations framed by it has any statutory force. Secondly, the mere fact that the Board grants recognition to the institutions on certain terms and conditions itself does not confer any enforceable right on any person as against the Committee of Management. In Km. Regina v. St. Aloysins High Elementary School and another, [1971 (3) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that the mere fact that an institution is recognised by an authority, does not itself create an enforceable right to an aggrieved party against the Management by a teacher on the ground of breach or non-compliance of any of the Rules which was part of terms of the recognition. Thus, where a teacher or non-teaching staff challenges action of Committee of Management that it has violated the terms of contract or the Rules of the Affiliation Byelaws, the appropriate remedy of such teacher or employee is to approach the CBSE or to take such other legal remedy available under law. It is open to the CBSE to take appropriate action against the Committee of Management of the institution for withdrawal of recognition in case it finds that the Committee of Management has not performed its duties in accordance with the Affiliation Byelaws. Thus, it can be safely concluded that power of judicial review Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by the High Court even if the body against which an action is sought is not State or an Authority or an Instrumentality of the State but there must be a public element in the action complained of. In the case of Committee of Management, Delhi Public School and Anr. v. M.K. Gandhi, [2007 (8) TMI 827 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that no writ is maintainable against a private school as it is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the case on hand, the facts are similar. Rule 26(1) of the Affiliation Byelaws, framed by the CBSE, provides that each school affiliated with the Board shall frame Service Rules. Sub-rule (2) of it provides that a service contract will be entered with each employee as per the provision in the Education Act of the State/U.T. or as given in the Appendix III, if not obligatory as per the State Education Act. These Rules also provide procedures for appointments, probation, confirmation, recruitment, attendance representations, grant of leave, code of conduct, disciplinary procedure, penalties, etc. The model form of contract of service, to be executed by an employee, given in Appendix III, lays down that the service, under this agreement, will be liable to disciplinary action in accordance with the Rules and Regulations framed by the school from time to time. There are no hesitation that the Respondent No. 1 herein cannot press into service the dictum as laid down by this Court in the case of Marwari Balika Vidhyalaya [2019 (2) TMI 1961 - SUPREME COURT] as the said case is distinguishable - unlike Marwari Balika Vidhyalaya where approval was required of the State Government, in the case on hand the approval is to be obtained from the disciplinary committee of the institution. This distinguishing feature seems to have been overlooked by the High Court while passing the impugned order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in taking the view that the original writ application filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein Under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The Appeal Court could be said to have committed an error in taking a contrary view - Appeal allowed. 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 InstitutionThe 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 226The 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.ConclusionThe 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.