VINITA w/o PRADEEP NAIR vs UNION OF INDIA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 1659

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
VINITA w/o PRADEEP NAIR – APPELLANT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – RESPONDENT
W. P. No. 11165 of 2021
Decided On : 28-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rishi Shrivastava
For the Respondent: Himanshu Joshi
For the State : Nitin Singh Bhati, Gaurav Chhabra, Prabal Jain

Headnote:
Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - St. Mary’s Education Society and another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others - Relevant paragraphs 3, 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 14, 68, 69 and 70 - An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. While a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a “public function” or “public duty” be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are teachers, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the deduction of their salary by respondent No. 5 (Laurels School International), a private party.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application was devoid of merits and frivolous, and dismissed it.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition on the ground of whether the respondent No. 5, an unaided educational institution, would be amenable to writ jurisdiction when its relationship with the petitioners was contractual in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty, and individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed, and the court directed the reply to be filed within 4 weeks and pleadings to be completed/filed within further 2 weeks time, listing the case on 11-1-2023.

ORDER : -

Heard on an application (Document No. 3412/2022) for dismissal of the petition on account of its maintainability as the preliminary objections have been raised on behalf of respondent No. 5 (Laurels School International).

2. Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5/School has submitted that respondent No. 5 is an unaided educational institution and the petitioners were employed in the aforesaid School on contractual basis only as teachers.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have claimed the reliefs pertaining to the payment of salary by respondent No. 5/School, which does not involve any sort of public functions on the part of respondent No. 5. Hence, the petition is not maintainable qua respondent No. 5.

4. In support of his contentions, Shri Chhabra has relied upon a recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society and another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others, Civil Appeal No. 5789/2022, dated 24-8-2022, reported in 2022 SSC On-Line SC 1091.

5. It is submitted that the relationship between the petitioners and respondent No. 5 was contractual in nature and as per the contract, respondent No. 5 had all the authorities to terminate the services of the petitioners and as per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society (supra), a private unaided educational institution can be made amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when the action or inaction of such institution which is under challenge relates to public functions performed by such institution.

6. The aforesaid application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and it is submitted that the application is misconceived as respondent No. 5 is a school and even if it is an unaided school, it is very much imparting education which is a public function; and since the petitioners are the teachers, it cannot be said that respondent No. 5 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

7. In support of his submissions, Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an earlier decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs. Asha Srivastava and others, reported as (2020) 14 SCC 449. 8. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :—

“7. RELIEF SOUGHT :— It is therefore most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued that, 1. Retrospective termination of the Petitioners be held illegal and be set aside, 2. Respondent No. 5 be directed to make payment of full salary to the Petitioners till date, including the payment of backwages along with interest of 12% p.a. thereon, 3. Respondent No. 3 be directed to initiate inquiry against Respondent No. 5 for the illegalities committed by Respondent No. 5, 4. Respondent No. 4 be directed to cancel the affiliation of Respondent No. 5, Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be passed in the interest of justice.”

10. The grievance of the petitioners, who are teachers, is that they are aggrieved by the deduction of their salary by respondent No. 5 (Laurels School International) which is admittedly a private party.

11. The short point involved in the interlocutory application is in respect of maintainability of the petition on the ground that whether the respondent No. 5, an unaided educational institution would be amenable to writ jurisdiction when its relationship with the petitioners was contractual in nature.

12. So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society (supra) is concerned, relevant paragraphs 3, 10, 11, 12, 12, 13, 14, 68, 69 and 70 of the same read, as under :—

Click Here to Read the rest of this document