Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 655

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Kausik Majumdar – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.A. 16573 of 2019 with C.A.N. 1 of 2022
Decided on : 23-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shamim Ahammed, Adv., Mr. Arka Maiti, Adv., Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv., Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Adv., Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ujjal Ray, Adv., Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Sk. Abdur Rahim, Adv., Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ld. AGP, Mr. K.M. Hossain, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employment dispute between an employee and a private unaided school, arising out of a private contract, does not involve a public law element and therefore cannot be remedied through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
Maintainability of Writ Petition - Employment Dispute - THE WEST BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE (ADJUDICATION OF SCHOOL DISPUTES) COMMISSION ACT, 2008 - Sections 12 and 13 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Public Law Element
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of a private unaided school, filed a writ petition challenging the termination of his employment. The school contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the relationship between the petitioner and the school was that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the disputes raised by the petitioner, though not related to specified State Acts, were amenable to the jurisdiction of the commission under the 2008 Act. The court also found that the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Constitutional Court, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition in an employment dispute between the petitioner and a private unaided school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's employment dispute did not touch any public law element, and therefore, the remedy did not involve public duties or public functions. The court also emphasized that the petitioner had a remedy under Section 13 of the 2008 Act, where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not a bar.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, without any order as to costs. The court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the petitioner's case and that the petitioner was free to take appropriate measures for redressal of his grievance in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.:

Facts:

1. The petitioner was appointed and joined at W.W.A. Cossipore English School (for short, the School) on September 07, 1992 as an Office Assistant. The employment of the petitioner was confirmed by the school in 1992, Annexures P-1 and P-2 at page 15 and 16 to the writ petition.

2. Pursuant to an advertisement published on May 14, 1995 for recruitment for the Post of Computer Teacher, the petitioner applied. After being selected therein the petitioner was shifted from the office duty to the teaching faculty on April 08, 1996, Annexure P-2 at page 17 to the writ petition. The petitioner since then had been working as such. On the ground of an alleged offence of sexual harassment the petitioner was hauled up by the school authority and ultimately on October 29, 2018 the employment of the petitioner was terminated Annexure P-4 at page 20 to the writ petition. The petitioner made representations Annexure P-5 at page 21 to 35 to the writ petition. The petitioner alleges that in violation of the provisions laid down by the school education department of the State enumerated in the procedure for taking disciplinary action against a permanent staff for Anglo Indian and other listed institutions in a notification dated December 24, 1993, Annexure P-6 at page 36 to the writ petition, being the code of regulations, the petitioner’s employment was terminated.

3. Challenging the said termination, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for the following reliefs:

“A) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to set aside the order of termination dated 29.10.2018 and reinstate petitioner in his earlier post.

B) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to release the arrear salary and other financial benefits immediately.

C) A writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to transit the entire records of the case to this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justice may be rendered to set aside the said impugned order dated 29.10.2018.

D) An interim order directing the respondents authorities to allow the petitioner to join his earlier post immediately.

E) Rule NISI interms of prayer (A) (B) and (C) above.

F) The cost of the litigations.

G) Such further order or orders and/or direction or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice”.

4. The respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 being the school authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioner has filed its affidavit-in-reply.

Submission:

5. At the threshold relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of: St. Mary’s Education Society and Another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, reported at 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1091, Mr. Ujjal Ray learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4 raised the point of maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that, the relevant school being a private unaided school and the relationship between the petitioner and the school being employer and employee under a private contract, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The relevant school is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

6. Before going into the merit of the writ petition to defend the said point of maintainability, Mr. Shamim Ahammed learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in the manner stated hereinafter.

7. Referring to diverse provisions from THE WEST BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE (ADJUDICATION OF SCHOOL DISPUTES) COMMISSION ACT, 2008 (For short, the said 2008 Act), Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said 2008 Act was promulgated after receiving the assent from the President of India, though the same being a State Legislation. He submits that the school as defined under the said 2008 Act is a school as recognized under the State Acts but does not include a government school. The school also means an unaided school, as the said school in the instant case. He submit