Writ petitions against private educational institutions are maintainable only when public law elements are involved; service disputes without statutory backing cannot invoke judicial review.

O R D E R

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned show-cause notice dated 29.01.2017 issued by the sixth respondent and the letter of suspension dated 04.06.2024 issued by the seventh respondent.

2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been working in the fifth respondent school as a Senior Principal since June 2015. Meanwhile, she was issued an order of suspension on 12.04.2017, and subsequently, a charge memorandum dated 15.07.2017 was issued to her. Following this, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Aggrieved with the charge memorandum and suspension, the petitioner preferred Writ Petitions in W.P.No.22305 of 2018 and W.P.No.12261 of 2020. After the orders were passed in the Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals are now pending. Meanwhile, the petitioner was again issued with another show-cause notice dated 29.01.2017 and a suspension order dated 04.06.2024, which are under challenge in the present Writ Petition. Though the petitioner has raised various grounds, and to challenge the above impugned order, given the primary contention raised by the fifth respondent regarding maintainability, it is appropriate to first decide on the maintainability before delving into the merits of the matter.

2.1. With regard to the maintainability, it is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash that, though the writ petition is filed against a private school, still the same is maintainable because of the duty imposed on statute under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). To substantiate the above submission, they rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inFederal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas , reported in(2003) 10 SCC 733 . Apart from that, the learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inMarwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava , reported in (2020) 14 SCC 449 , and Raj Kumar v. Director of Education , reported in(2016) 6 SCC 541 to support his case that even in respect of service matters, the Writ petitions are maintainable against the private unaided educational institutions.

2.3. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that, by virtue of Section 22(3)(b) of the Act, the suspension shall not be beyond a period of two months, and if so, approval of the competent authority is required. Therefore, contended that when the statute mandates certain things and imposes a duty upon the private school, on its non compliance, a writ petition will be maintainable. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Wilson in St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava , reported in(2023) 4 SCC 498, is not applicable to the case in hand, as the above judgement deals with office employees of private school, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner is the Senior Principal qua the teaching staff. Hence, would contend that the present writ petition is maintainable.

3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth to seventh respondents, by relying the judgment in St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra). According to him, the above judgment has clearly distinguished the earlier judgment of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya's case (cited supra), wherein, it was the Government stand that appro