IMPORTANT POINT
Employees of private educational institutions cannot invoke Article 226 for service disputes unless governed by statutory provisions, as established in St. Mary’s Education Society case.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

(Order on C.M. Application No. I.A. 1 of 2024)

1. Heard Smt. Alka Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No. 2377 of 2024.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the appellant is based at New Delhi and is suffering from chronic fever. It is also stated in the affidavit that after termination of his service, the appellant was facing financial crisis. The learned Standing Counsel has not seriously opposed the application for condonation of delay.

4. The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.

(Order on Appeal)

5. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ A No. 2377 of 2024, which was filed challenging termination of the appellant’s service on the post of Teacher in D.A.V. Public School, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, which is a private school.

6. The Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition as non-maintainable in view of the law laid down in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others: (2023) 4 SCC 498. The learned counsel for the appellant ably attempted to distinguish the case on the ground that the judgment in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra) pertains to non-teaching staff whereas the appellant was working on the post of the Teacher. However, the Hon’ble Single Judge held that in St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra), the Supreme Court has clearly held that the employees of a private institution would not have the right to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the matters relating to service contracts, where they are not governed or controlled by any statutory provisions and also that an educational institution may be performing myriad functions touching upon various facets of public duty but a contract of service being an offer and acceptance of terms between two private entities would not fall within the realm of public functions regulated by public law.

7. Smt. Alka Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment in St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra) deals with the non-teaching employees and the ratio laid down in that case would not apply to the appellant who was a teacher. She has relied upon a decision rendered by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Vinita v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 3745 wherein it has been held that the judgment of St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra) would not apply to teachers of private institutions.

8. A perusal of the judgment in the case of Vinita (Supra) indicates that the Madhya Pradesh High Court has noted the preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Apex court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra) and while dealing with this preliminary objection the Madhya Pradesh High Court has merely stated that the “applicability of this judgment has already been considered by Single Bench as well as by Division Bench, therefore, there is no need to reconsider the issue while deciding this petition finally”.

9. The judgment in which the Single Judge and the Division Bench judgments referred to in Vinita Nair (supra), wherein the question of applicability of St. Mary’s Education Society (supra) was considered, have not been placed before this Court.

10. St. Mary's Education Society runs a private unaided educational institution. Respondent 1 in the appeal - Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, was serving as an office employee of the society. He had filed a Writ Petition challenging termination of his services. A Single J