The court confirmed the limitations of enforcing non-statutory service rules and the necessity for statutory compliance in educational institutions.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 11.08.2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.5925 of 2021, whereby that writ petition, along with connected matter, was disposed of as follows;

“30. Admittedly, the Government has not prescribed Rules relating to salary and conditions of service of the teachers or staff of the aided schools as provided under the Bye- laws. The 5th respondent contends that they are paying salary as per Ext.R-5(C) and R-5(D) Government orders, which have been issued by the Government under the relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act , 1948. Ext.R-5(C) Government order says that in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub- section (1) of Section 5 of the , 1948 read with Sub- section (2) of thereof, the Government of Kerala has prescribed the rates of wages to the employees employed in private educational institutions (non-teaching) in the State of Kerala specified in the schedule annexed to the same and says that from the date of publication of the notification, the rates of pay shall come into force. Ext.R- 5(D) says that the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the 1948 read with Sub- section (2) of thereof is revising the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees employed in the private educational institutions (non-teaching) industry sector in the State of Kerala as specified in the Schedule annexed thereto. Apparently these two Government orders have not been issued pursuant to the stipulations contained in Clause 5.2.2 in Chapter 5 of the Bye-laws. The said Government orders were never intended to be the pay scales and allowances as per the stipulations contained in the Bye-laws which came into effect in the year 2018 only. The learned Senior Government Pleader also admitted that the Government has not prescribed any Rules as provided in the Bye-laws. If the Government had prescribed Rules and if they were not being complied with by the School, then certainly it would have been a violation of the provisions of the Bye-laws. Had that been the case, the CBSE could have been issued with necessary directions to take action. That admittedly is not the case here. Further, Ext.P2 Service Rules of the school cannot be enforced as it has no statutory flavour and as it is only a contract between the parties which cannot be enforced through a proceedings under Article 226. Ext.P16 representation given to the school is based on the Rules contained in Ext.P2, which cannot be directed to be enforced through the present proceedings. Though the writ is maintainable, the reliefs prayed for cannot be granted for the aforesaid reasons.

In the result –

a) Question No.1 in the Reference Order, whether a writ against non-consideration of a representation submitted by a teacher before a School Management Committee would be maintainable, is not answered as it does not arise for consideration in this case.

b) Question No.2 in the Reference Order, whether the CBSE can be directed by this Court to enforce the provisions contained in the Bye-laws, is answered in the affirmative.

c) W.P.(C)No.8036 of 2020 is disposed of directing the third and the fourth respondents to dispose of Ext.P6 representation of the petitioner, after giving notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

d) W.P.(C)No.5925 of 2021 is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.”

2. On 29.10.2025, when this review petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

“We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the pet