SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Gau) 464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
H. Baruah, J.
Moinul Hoque – Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 27.06.2008

The main legal point established in the judgment is that private institutions, such as the high school and its Managing Committee, receiving government assistance, may not be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if their actions are not subject to statutory rules or government approval.

Headnote:

Appointment - Private School - Not amenable to writ jurisdiction - [Manulla Para High School, Dhubri] - [Not applicable] - The court discussed the appointment of a private respondent as an Assistant Teacher in a high school and the jurisdiction of the Managing Committee in making such appointments. The court considered the nature of the school as a private institution and its receipt of government assistance, and concluded that the school and its Managing Committee were not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the appointment of a private respondent as an Assistant Teacher in a high school and the approval of the appointment by the Managing Committee and the Inspector of School. The petitioner alleged malafide and arbitrary actions by the respondent authorities and deprivation of legitimate expectations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the high school and its Managing Committee were not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as they were considered private institutions and the appointment of the private respondent was not subject to any statutory rules or government approval.

Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Managing Committee in making appointments in a private school receiving government assistance, and the applicability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Managing Committee of the private school, not governed by statutory rules and not requiring government approval for appointments, was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus is confined only to public authorities to compel performances of public duty.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court, concluding that the private school and its Managing Committee were not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

H. Baruah, J.

1. The challenge made in this writ petition by the petitioner is approval and appointment of private respondent No. 6 herein as Assistant Teacher in Manulla Para High School, District-Dhubri by the Managing Committee of the said school vide resolution Nos. 2 and 3 of the committee dated 31.3.2007 and provisional approval thereof vide order dated 8.5.2007 by the Inspector of School, Dhubri Circle, District-Dhubri.

2. The Headmaster/Secretary of Manulla Para High School invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up a post of Assistant Teacher (Science) in Manulla Para High School, Dhubri vide advertisement dated 27.2.2007 resolved vide resolution No. 3 of the Managing Committee of the said school (Annexure-4). In the said advertisement the number of post, name of the post, requisite qualification and age have been incorporated. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the writ petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the post and his application was received by the school authority vide annexure-5 dated 20.3.2007. Altogether four numbers of applications were received by the concerned authority of the said school including the writ petitioner. But the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 without conducting any interview arbitrarily appointed private respondent No. 6 in the post which was sought to be approved by the respondent No. 3 as Assistant Teacher (Science) of the said school. The writ petitioner having had the knowledge of such move of the Managing Committee filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 2223 of 2007 before this Court seeking setting aside the impugned appointment of the respondent No. 6 and for restrainment of approval by the respondent No. 3. This Hon'ble Court after hearing the parties issued an interim order dated 11.5.2007 with a direction to respondent No. 3 not to approve the appointment of respondent No. 6 until returnable date on 25.5.2007, if in the meantime the approval was not accorded.

3. Respondent No. 3 even after receipt of the order dated 11.5.2007 approved the appointment of the respondent No. 6 by putting a back date in the approval letter which constrained the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition No. 2223 of 2007 with a liberty to file afresh in view of change of circumstances or in other words subsequent development.

4. The Manulla Para High School, Dhubri was recognized by the competent authority in the year 1993 and since thereafter the school had/has been receiving all types of Government grants-in-aid from time to time. It is contended that the respondent authorities acted in a malafide and arbitrary manner and inducted their own interested person without following the procedure established and deprived the petitioner and others from his/their legitimate expectation. Since the Managing Committee of the said school is discharging public function even though not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is amenable to writ jurisdiction and in the same way selection, appointment of teachers are also conducted for discharging public function and as such the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Assistant Teacher of the said school approved by respondent No. 3 is illegal, unjust, unfair which is liable to be set aside and quashed. The acts and omission on the part of the Managing Committee of the said school in appointing the respondent No. 6 as Assistant Teacher (Science) in the Manulla Para High School without holding any interview of the candidates whose candidatures were obtained through advertisement are illegal and not in accordance with rules.

5. Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 filed affidavit-in-opposition. Respondent No. 2 in paragraph six of the affidavit-in-opposition has contended inter alia that Manulla Para High School is an adhoc school and the Managing Committee of the said school is responsible and competent authority in regard to appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff. Any decision taken by the Managing Committee in resp











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top