Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 848

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5789 of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1118 of 2022)
Decided On : 24-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Rohit R. Saboo, Adv. Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Respondent-in-person Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a private unaided minority educational institution. A service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employee cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private unaided minority educational institution? Whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employee can be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Fact of the Case:

The appellant No. 1 is a Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The Society runs an all-girls school in Mhow, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, by the name St. Mary’s Higher Secondary School, which was founded by a group of French Catholic Nuns in 1893. The school is a private unaided minority educational institution, which enjoys the protection guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. There is absolutely no Governmental control over the functioning and administration of the school. The respondent No. 1 herein was employed in this school prior to his termination.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a private unaided minority educational institution. A service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employee cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private unaided minority educational institution? 2. Whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employee can be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public. 2. Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the status of “State” within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the Writ Appeal No. 485 of 2017 was set aside. The writ application accordingly stands rejected on the ground of its maintainability.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is at the instance of a private unaided minority educational institution and its disciplinary committee, (respondents before the High Court) and is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2021 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Indore in the Writ Appeal No. 485 of 2017 by which the Division Bench set aside the judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court and held that a writ petition filed by an employee of a private unaided minority educational institution seeking to challenge his termination from service is maintainable in law.

3. In the present appeal, two pivotal issues fall for consideration of this Court :-

(a) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private unaided minority institution?

(b) Whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employee can be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution?

In other words, 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?

4. The aforesaid two questions, though not vexed, nevertheless despite plethora of case laws, always give rise to a debate.

FACTUAL MATRIX

5. The appellant No. 1-Society runs a private unaided educational institution. The appellant No. 2 is the disciplinary committee constituted by the appellant No. 1-Society for the purpose of its internal management. The respondent No. 1 herein (original writ applicant before the learned single Judge) was serving as an office employee of the appellant No. 1. It appears from the materials on record that a show cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 08.09.2014 was issued by the appellant No. 1 herein to the respondent No.1 for the various alleged misconduct in service. The respondent No. 1 herein was thereafter issued a departmental chargesheet dated 08.12.2014 essentially on six grounds.

6. The statement of charges and allegations as contained in the chargesheet dated 08.12.2014 are as under :-

“Charge-I

That, you refused to receive and deposit the PTA fund from the lady teachers of the school on 4th August, 2014 and misbehaved with them. You talked to them rudely, loudly and your language was improper. Your refusal to receive and deposit the amount during the working hours is a gross misconduct and dereliction of your duty and act subversive of discipline.

Charge-II

That, you are in habit of writing unwarranted letters to different authorities against the Principal of the school using very disrespectful, derogatory and offensive language, making false accusation which is spoiling the image and reputation of this school.

Charge-III

That, you have threatened and pressurized the institution by closing your Bank Account in which your monthly salary was being deposited for the last so many years. You also actually refused to accept and receive your monthly salary for the month of August, 2014, which was offered to you by cheque personally on 01.09.2014. In the following month the salary from 1st to 8th September and 9th to 30th September as Subsistence Allowance was also offered to you by cheque on 01.10.2014 which you refused to accept again, saying that- “I will take the subsistence allowance but until and unless I get justice …” (Letter dated 10.10.2014).

Your refusal to accept the salary shows that you do not wish to continue the relationship of employer – employee with the school because the school cannot take your service without paying your salary.

Charge-IV

That earlier also your rude behavior with the Principal of the school was noticed for which you were warned and advised to improve your behavior and talk politely. However, no improvement has been shown by you in your behavior. You hav