Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17573
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. SUJATHA, J
M. SREEDHAR REDDY YSR KADAPA DIST. A.P. & 3 OTRS. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF A.P. R&B. HYD. & 3 OTRS. – Respondent
WP 23728/2015
1. V V L N SARMA, 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY, 1. GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS (AP), 2. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable against private unaided institutions for individual grievances lacking a public law element.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners challenged termination of employment without notice, claiming entitlement to notice under service rules - Respondents argued that the society is not a 'State' under Article 12, thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction - Court found that the petitioners' grievances relate to a private contract without public law element, rendering the writ petition not maintainable. (Paras 2, 10, 11)
(B) Public Law Element - The court emphasized that individual grievances in service matters lacking a public law element cannot be addressed through a writ petition under Article 226, reaffirming that actions taken within a private contract are not subject to judicial review. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were employed as Demonstrators under a contract, which was terminated citing surplus staff and poor performance, without the required notice.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the writ petition as it pertained to a private contractual matter without public law implications.
Issues: The main issue was whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private unaided institution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that individual grievances related to service matters lacking a public law element cannot be addressed through a writ petition under Article 226.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
COMMON ORDER :
Both these petitions are filed by the different petitioners, however, the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.39353 of 2015 as leading petition. W.P.No.39353 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
2. The petitioners herein were initially appointed to the post of Demonstrator (Electrical) by the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 28.04.2007 (1 st petitioner) and 28.02.2009 (2 nd petitioner), for a period of one year; which was subsequently extended from time to time. In the year 2014, the contract period of the petitioners was extended for a further period of two years; while so, the 3 rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 30.07.2015 has terminated the services of the petitioners herein on the ground that they were found surplus and as there was no work. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though they are entitled to be issued one month’s notice before removal, the respondents have directly issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.07.2015. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
3. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the 2 nd respondent is a Society registered on 24.09.1998 under the A.P. Public Societies Registration Act, 1350; which is formed to create awareness and to impart training to achieve quality in the field of constructions and to contribute to the development of the construction industry. The 2 nd respondent society is run on the subscriptions paid by the members and the donations voluntarily made in favour of the society. The administration management and affairs of the society are conducted as per the byelaws and the provisions of the Society Registration Act. It is further stated that the present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents and consequently seeking a direction to the respondents, but no relief is sought against the 1 st respondent herein, however the 1 st respondent is made as a formal respondent to the writ petition. It is further stated that the 2 nd respondent is not a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the actions of the 2 nd respondent are not amenable to a challenge in the writ petition.
4. It is further stated that since the electrical house wiring (EHW) Faculty was working with surplus staff and as there is no work for 11 contract employees including the petitioner herein, their services were terminated with effect from 31-7-2015. The performance of the petitioners is tardy since beginning and they could not train as per the targets in their trade and could achieve only dismal targets and due to the poor performance of 1 st petitioner the 2 nd respondent, was put to a loss of Rs.8.82 lacs and due to the poor performance of 2 nd petitioner, 2 nd respondent was put to a loss of Rs. 7.86 lakhs. As such, requested to dismiss the writ petition as it is not maintainable and is devoid of merits.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. K. Murali Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
6. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the facts as stated in the affidavit and has further brought to the notice of this Court the appointment letter of the petitioners as per which it can be seen that the services of the petitioners shall be terminated with o
