Court says termination challenge against private trust-run educational institution does not raise a public law issue and cannot be entertained under Article 226.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a teacher challenging her termination from service by a private unaided educational institution, holding that the dispute was purely contractual and therefore not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan ruled that although private educational institutions may, in certain circumstances, be amenable to writ jurisdiction if they discharge public duties or functions, that principle does not automatically extend to every service dispute involving such institutions. The Court emphasized that the key test is not merely whether the institution performs an activity of public importance, such as imparting education, but whether the specific action challenged involves a public law obligation.
The petitioner had relied on several precedents, including Andi Mukta Sadguru, VST Industries, Manoj Kumar, and Uttam Chand Rawat, to argue that a writ petition was maintainable against the institution. However, the respondents contended that the school was a private unaided trust, not established or recognized under any statute for discharge of statutory functions, and that its employees’ service conditions were not governed by any statutory framework. They argued that the termination arose from a private employer-employee relationship and could not be examined in writ jurisdiction.
Accepting the respondents’ objection, the Court noted that the institution was neither shown to be an instrumentality of the State nor in receipt of government aid. It further observed that no statutory right or public duty had been shown to have been violated. Referring to recent Supreme Court decisions, including St. Mary’s Education Society and Army Welfare Education Society, the Court reiterated that disputes arising from ordinary contracts of service in private educational institutions remain in the realm of private law unless backed by statute or public duty.
The Court held that the petitioner’s grievance was essentially against the termination of a contractual engagement and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court could not be used as a substitute for an ordinary remedy in such a private service dispute. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone.
Bottom Line :
Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition - Private unaided educational institution - Challenge to termination of service of teacher/employee - Mere imparting of education or public importance of educational activity does not convert a private contractual service dispute into a public law dispute - In absence of statutory regulation of service conditions, governmental aid, or enforceable public duty, writ petition is not maintainable.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950
Nootan Rai v. Union of India, (All) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985753
