Summary
The Court upheld reinstatement with back wages of a teacher dismissed by a privately managed school receiving dearness-allowance aid. Government approval was required for removal but had not been obtained. The school’s public educational function and the approval obligation supported writ maintainability. The stigmatic dismissal after five years of service, without a departmental inquiry, was arbitrary and void; the Court declined to withhold back wages in those circumstances.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition lay against the privately managed school in the circumstances.
- Whether dismissal without approval or inquiry justified reinstatement and back wages.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaUpheld writ maintainability in light of the public educational function and enforceable approval obligation governing the termination. (¶¶ 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Held
- Approval of appointment had been granted retrospectively. The pleadings and governmental response established that approval was also required for removal, and none had been obtained. (¶ 12)
- Article 226 is not confined to Article 12 State bodies: the nature of the public duty and the positive obligation matter. A private institution’s status did not defeat this petition concerning education and the applicable approval safeguard. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 20)
- Cases about ordinary private-school employment or pay parity without an applicable public-law obligation were distinguishable; they did not resolve the approval issue present here. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The teacher had served five years before a stigmatic dismissal imposed without departmental inquiry or requisite approval. Given its arbitrary and void character, the Court upheld reinstatement and rejected the request to deny back wages. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24)
Result
School’s appeal dismissed; reinstatement and back-wage relief upheld. No costs.