Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
Patel Ratilal Keshavbhai & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 7024 of 2024 With R/Special Civil Application No. 7074 of 2024
Decided on : 30-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. HARDIK J JANI
For the Respondent: MS VANDANA H JANI, MS NIDHI VYAS,

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private unaided minority institution for service disputes, and the petitioners should approach the statutory tribunal, in this case, the Gujarat Education Tribunal, for remedy.

Headnote:
Termination - Private Educational Institution - Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972, Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 - Section 36(1)(a) and (b), Section 40(B) - The court discussed the maintainability of a writ petition against a private unaided minority institution and the adjudication of service disputes in a private educational institution under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court analyzed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of St.Mary’s Education Society and Anr. vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors., and concluded that the employer, a private educational institution, is not a State, and the action complained of does not have any public law element. The court emphasized that the service conditions are regulated by statutory provisions, and the petitioners should approach the Gujarat Education Tribunal for remedy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were appointed as teachers in a registered private school, challenged their termination from service in the month of April, 2023, alleging that the termination was illegal and improper.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employer, a private educational institution, is not a State, and the action complained of does not have any public law element. The court emphasized that the service conditions are regulated by statutory provisions, and the petitioners should approach the Gujarat Education Tribunal for remedy.
Issues: The pivotal issues considered by the court were the maintainability of a writ petition against a private unaided minority institution and the adjudication of service disputes in a private educational institution under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of St.Mary’s Education Society and Anr. vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors., and concluded that the employer, a private educational institution, is not a State, and the action complained of does not have any public law element. The court emphasized that the service conditions are regulated by statutory provisions, and the petitioners should approach the Gujarat Education Tribunal for remedy.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Gujarat Education Tribunal, clarifying that it had not made any observation on the merits of the issue.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hardik Jani on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nidhi Vyas on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have sought for the following prayers:-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and direction to the respondents authority holding the action of respondent no.4 terminating services of the petitioners out of sudden and without following due process of law, as illegal, improper, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the settle position of law and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to absorb the petitioners – teachers in the other school institutions run by him and to pay them the salary regularly as per rule of law.

Alternatively;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to pay some lumpsum compensation to each of the petitioners on account of their sudden termination from services without following due process of law.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents authority to decide the representation dated 12/15.04.2024 made by the petitioners in accordance with law within the stipulated time;

(D) Be pleased to pass such other and further appropriate orders deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice.”

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners who are appointed as teachers in a registered private school i.e. under respondent no.4 in the year 2017, have been terminated from service in the month of April, 2023. The petitioners, by way of these petitions, challenge the said termination order.

4. At the outset, to a pointed query by this Court as to how the present petitions would be maintainable more particularly when the respondent no.4 whose action is under challenge is a private educational institution, learned advocate Mr.Jani would rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of St.Mary’s Education Society and Anr. vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Jani on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the respondent no.4 could not have terminated the services of the petitioners without following the procedure under Section 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1972 and Section 40(B) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 and whereas, it is submitted that since the respondents were required to follow a process laid down in the statute, violation of the same would make the decision on the part of the respondents amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. As against the same, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Nidhi Vyas on behalf of the respondent – State would submit that neither does the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of St. Mary’s Education Society (supra) lay down any absolute proposition that a writ could be maintainable against a decision with regard to service of the petitioners with a private educational institution and whereas it is further submitted that as such, the present petitioners have an efficacious remedy of preferring an application before the Gujarat Educational Institution Tribunal, therefore, the present petition may not be entertained.

5.1. Learned AGP Ms.Vyas would submit that there is no such shocking aspect which is brought forth to the notice of this Court which would require urgent intervention by this Court and whereas, it is submitted that entertaining such a petition would render the purpose of establishing a separate tribunal for such matters otiose. Learned AGP would submit that as such, the services of the petitioners have been terminated in or around April, 2023 as per the pleadings as stated in the petitions and whereas the petitioners, for no reason, are approaching this Court by filing these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned AGP