C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Challenge in these appeals is to the order of the Writ Court, dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants, challenge in which were to the orders of termination of each of the appellants issued by the 5th respondent College.

2.The main ground of challenge was that there was no notice prior to the said termination and all the orders were laconic in as much as they did not contain any reason for termination. The writ petition was mainly resisted on the ground that the 5th respondent being an un-aided minority educational institution, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ Court agreed with the defence set up and dismissed the Writ Petitions by a common order on the primary conclusion that Writ Petitions are not maintainable. Aggrieved, these appeals have been preferred.

3.Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IVY C.DA CONCEICAO Vs. State of Goa and Others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 619 to contend that even minority institutions are amenable to writ jurisdiction. On the facts of the said case, it is found that challenge therein was to the selection and appointment of a particular individual as the Principal, ignoring the claims of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Surpeme Court concluded, even though the minority institutions have got absolute freedom in respect of management, their action in selection of Principal should be shown to be fair and not in violation of right of individual eligible for appointment. In para 16 of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:-

“16.We, thus, hold that while under the constitutional scheme, a “minority institution” is free to select and appoint a Principal, without being bound by the principle of seniority alone, whether the appointment has been made farily and reasonably and whether there is violation of right of an individual eligible candidate by the minority institution by not adopting fair procedure, is liable to be tested in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Since this aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the High Court, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The matter stands remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the controversy between the parties. No costs.”

4.Mr.J.Delipan, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent College would submit that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants may not apply and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in St.Mary's Education Society and Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1091 held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts cannot be extended to matters of individual contracts and an employee of a minority institution cannot invoke the extradinory writ jurisdiction for issuance of prerogative writ. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 69 of the judgment has observed as follows:-

“69. We may sum up our final conclusions as under:- (a) 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. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public.

(b) 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