Private employment disputes in unaided educational institutions fall outside the public law realm and are not justiciable under Article 226.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

i. That the oral termination of the applicant may kindly be declared null and void and the respondents may kindly be directed to take back the services of the applicant forthwith with all consequential benefits of seniority etc.

ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay all the arrears due and payable towards the applicant from the date of oral termination till the time the services of the applicant are taken back into service.

iii. That the appointment of respondent No. 6 may please be quashed.

2. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was orally appointed as Lecturer (Hindi and Sanskrit) on 23.01.1998 in D.A.V. P.G. College Daulatpur Chowk, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (for short the ‘College’). No appointment letter was issued in his favour. Initially, he was paid fixed monthly emolument of Rs. 1500/-, which subsequently came to be increased to Rs. 3500/- per month. As per petitioner, the College gave artificial breaks for 2-3 months every year in the case of petitioner. Petitioner worked till July 2004 where after his services were terminated orally.

3. Petitioner has placed reliance on experience certificates issued by the Principal of the College for the periods 23.01.1998 to March 1998, July 1998 to March 1999, July 1999 to March 2000, July 2000 to March 2001, July 2001 to March 2002, July 2002 to March 2003 and July 2003 to March 2004. It has further been submitted by petitioner that his name found mention in the list of the staff prepared by the College for the year 2004-2005, for the purposes of affiliation from the Himachal Board of School Education.

4. Petitioner filed Original Application No. 299 of 2004, before erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.08.2006. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 351 of 2004, before this Court, again the same was withdrawn on 09.11.2006.

5. In the above backdrop, petitioner has challenged his termination and has also prayed for other consequential reliefs, as noticed above.

6. Another contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 7 was wrongly appointed by the College. Petitioner could not have been replaced by a temporary employee. The alleged action of the College has been termed to be in violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. Only private respondent No. 7 has filed the reply. It is contended that the appointment of private respondent was made on 24.06.2004, whereas the services of petitioner were terminated on 07.07.2004 and for such reason there was no inter se dispute between private respondent No. 7 and petitioner. It has also been alleged that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

9. Though, the petitioner has made an averment that the College was aided by the State Government, but nothing has been placed on record to substantiate such averment. What has been shown is that the College had affiliation from State Board of School Education which is not sufficient bring in the element of public law. In absence of any tangible material to establish that the College was receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, such a fact cannot be presumed. It being so, the question arises whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain this petition for enforcement of rights, if any, arising out of service contract with a private unaided educational institution.

10. The answer has to be in negative. In light of the law lai