IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for enforcing private contractual rights against a private educational institution unless there is a public law element involved in the dispute.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjeev Kumar, J.) :

1. The petitioners, twelve in number, came to be engaged as Teachers in Muslim Educational Institute, Higher Secondary School, Pampore-Pulwama, from time to time between 9th March, 2009, to 16th April, 2014. It is submitted that due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the respondent Education Institute was closed as a precautionary measure and the petitioners were called upon to conduct the classes online. While the petitioner were regularly taking online classes, the respondent Institute did not pay them any salary for the months of March to July, 2020 and paid only 60% of salary for the months of August to September, 2020. Similarly, for the months of October and November, 2020, 25% of the salary of the petitioners was withheld whereas from December, 2020, onwards no salary was paid to the petitioners.

2. Having failed to persuade the school management to release their salary, the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor's Grievance Cell with a formal complaint. The petitioners also approached the respondents with their grievance, in response whereof respondent No. 3 vide its communication dated 23rd January, 2021, requested the District Development Commissioner, Pulwama, to constitute a high-Level committee to address the grievance of the petitioners. In the meanwhile, the complaint lodged by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor's Grievance Cell was also taken cognizance of by the authorities. To look into the complaint of the petitioners, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, constituted a committee of officers. The petitioners also made a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. To put it briefly, the grievance of the petitioners is that when the salary due to them was not paid by the respondent Institute, they made applications, representations and complaints to different authorities to intervene in the matter. This was not taken by the respondent Institute in good taste and, accordingly, the respondent Institute vide orders impugned issued on different dates dispensed with the services of the petitioners as Teachers. The impugned orders are placed on record by the petitioners as Annexure-A to the writ petition.

3. On being put on notice, the respondents have taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. It is submitted that the respondent-Institute is a private unaided Educational Institution governed by its own rules dealing with recruitment and conditions of service of its employees and, therefore, no writ lies to enforce such non-statutory terms of contract of service. It is contended by respondents No. 4 and 5 that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy for enforcing a private contract for personal service.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record, I am of the considered view that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents to the maintainability of the petition merits acceptance. It is trite law that a writ of mandamus under Article 226 may be issued even against a private body which is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the High Court can exercise judicial review of the action of such body challenged by a party provided there is public law element. The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to enforce a pure private contract entered into between the parties. The term "any person or authority" used in Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be read 'ejusdem generis' to the term "authority" used in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. However, Article 226 confers powers on the High Courts to issue writs even for enforcement of non-fundamental rights. The words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 of the Constitution are not to be confined only to statutory autho