Summary
A lower division clerk of a private unaided minority school in Mhow, affiliated to the CBSE, was dismissed after a departmental inquiry, and his appeal to the school's disciplinary committee failed. He challenged the termination by writ petition. The Division Bench, reversing the single judge, held the petition maintainable. The Supreme Court restored the single judge's order. Although such a school discharges the public function of education and may be amenable to Article 226, judicial review needs a public law element. A non-teaching employee's termination under an ordinary service contract not governed by statute is a private matter. CBSE byelaws have no statutory force and State regulatory power does not change this. Marwari Balika was distinguishable because State approval for removal was required there.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private unaided minority educational institution
- Whether a service dispute between such an institution and its non-teaching employee, such as termination after disciplinary proceedings, can be adjudicated under Article 226
Provisions considered
- Articles 12 and 226, Constitution of IndiaA private unaided school is not 'State' but may be an authority amenable to Article 226 for public functions. A purely contractual service dispute without a public law element is outside writ jurisdiction. (¶¶ 34, 41, 61, 68)
- Chapter VII (service rules) and Appendix IV, clause 6, CBSE Affiliation ByelawsThe byelaws have no statutory force and bind only when incorporated in the contract. Regulatory power under clause 6 gives no writ remedy. (¶¶ 30, 33, 50, 65, 67)
Held
- A private unaided school affiliated to the CBSE is not 'State' under Article 12, and the CBSE is a registered society whose byelaws lack statutory force. Recognition on conditions creates no right enforceable by employees against the management. The remedy for breach of the byelaws lies before the CBSE. (¶¶ 28, 30, 31, 33, 34)
- Because it imparts education, such a school discharges a public function and may be amenable to Article 226. Writ jurisdiction lies only where the impugned action has a public law element, and not to enforce a contract of personal service, which covers suspension and termination. (¶¶ 34, 37, 40, 41, 61)
- Service conditions in the byelaws become terms only through the employment contract. Without statutory provisions governing the service, the employee's claim rests on breach of contract and his remedy lies elsewhere. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51)
- Ramesh Ahluwalia was decided without noticing earlier contrary decisions. Marwari Balika Vidyalaya is distinguishable because there removal required State Government approval. Here the government had no role, and the required approval was only that of the school's own disciplinary committee. (¶¶ 55, 57, 58, 59)
- State regulatory power to safeguard minority institutions' employees does not make the school's actions enforceable by writ. A non-teaching employee's terms of employment are not part of the duty to impart education, and interference lies only for breach of a statute governing removal. (¶¶ 66, 67, 68)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Division Bench's judgment was set aside and the writ petition rejected as not maintainable, leaving the employee free to approach the CBSE, the State or other remedies; no opinion on the merits; no costs.