A private educational institution, even if not recognized, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court if it performs a public duty. Termination of service without providing an adequate opportunity to clarify and address concerns raised by the employer violates the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - The two petitioners were serving as Assistant Teachers in Buxi Jagabandhu English Medium School, Bhubaneswar. As the monthly salary paid to the petitioners was nominal inasmuch as the same was Rs. 100/- in so far as the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 4119/88 is concerned and Rs. 250/- qua the other petitioner, to augment their income, they wanted to take up agency work of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company. By communication dated January 22, 1985, the Secretary of the School permitted the petitioners to undertake the above work beyond school hours without affecting the normal duty as teachers. Subsequently, however, the Secretary of the school called upon the petitioners to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for "having agency of an insurance company", which was regarded as highly irregular. The petitioners were further asked to dissociate themselves from the agency and report compliance. In the explanation submitted, the petitioner of O.J.C. No. 4119/88 stated that as she had taken the insurance agency in 1981 and the tenure was for a period of two years, she was no longer an agent. This is what finds place in Annexure-5 dated October 20, 1987. In so far as the other petitioner is concerned, her reply as at Annexure-4 was that her agency under the company was "almost dead" and she was doing nothing for the company under the agency taken previously. It was further stated in Annexure-6 dated October 18, 1987 that she had dissociated herself from the agency work for the last two years. These explanations were considered by the Managing Committee, and being of the view that the petitioners had committed gross misconduct violating the terms of agreement executed by them, a decision was taken to terminate their services with effect from October 26, 1987 F.N.

2. The validity of the termination order was assailed in appeal before the Director, Secondary Education, who allowed the same by quashing the orders of termination and directing the Managing Committee to reinstate the petitioners forthwith giving all service benefits. This order was passed on June 6, 1988. As the Managing Committee did not implement the order of the Director, the present applications were filed praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus directing opp. parties 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioners in service pursuant to the order of the Director (o.p.No. 5), and for a direction to opp.parties 5, 6 and 8 to take appropriate action for reinstatement of the petitioners in service.

3. As common questions of law and fact are involved in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

4. Shri Gajendra for opp.parties 2, 3 and 7 has first submitted that the Director having no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, no direction can be given by this Court to opp.parties 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioners pursuant to the order of the Director. It is then contended that as the order of the Director can be implemented even without taking aid of this Court, if the case of the petitioners be accepted, by taking recourse to Section 7-A of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (for short, "the Act"), this Court ought not to have been approached for the aforesaid purpose inasmuch as the prayer is to execute the Director's order and this Court may not discharge such a function.

5. The objection relating to the jurisdiction of the Director has been taken on the ground that the Government Order No. 13585-EYS dated March 27, 1983 under which the appellate power was exercised by the Director has no application to the school in question inasmuch as the same is not a recognised one, having been established by a body of private individuals registered under the Societies Registration Act having its own memorandum of association. There is no dispute before us that if the school would not be a recognised one, the aforesaid Government Order would have no application and the Director wo