Dismissed

Sri Varalakshmi v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Dec 2024WP/6415/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of multiple writ petitions and a contempt case challenging non-payment of salaries and termination of staff in a private unaided polytechnic college. The court held that without statutory service conditions, employment matters are private and not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions and contempt case disposed of; petitioners directed to pursue remedies before appropriate forums for salary recovery.

Sri Varalakshmi Vs the State of Ap — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010359852018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶7

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 17178/2018

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic Employees Union Joint Action Committee,

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

Prl Secy Education Dept State Of A P and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶20

K RAMAKANTH REDDY

¶21

V V PRABHAKARA RAO

¶22

APHC010144622019

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶26

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 6415/2019

¶29

Between:

¶30

Sri Varalakshmi and Others

¶31

...PETITIONER(S)

¶32

AND

¶33

The State Of Ap and Others

¶34

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶36

RAMANI ANNAM

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP)

¶39

CH NAGA MEHAR BABA

¶40

¶41

APHC010177332019

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶43

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶44

[3396]

¶45

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶46

PRESENT

¶47

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7669/2019

Between:

Kalle Krishna Mohan

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of A P and Others

¶53

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶55

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

P V S S S RAMA RAO

¶58

GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶59

P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶60

V V PRABHAKARA RAO

¶61

SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶62

APHC010177392019

¶63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

¶64

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶65

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶66

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.7671/2019

Between:

K Leela Prasad,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of A P Rep By Its Principal Secretary Higher Education Department and Others

¶72

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶73

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶74

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶75

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶76

P V S S S RAMA RAO 2. GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AP) 3. P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶77

V V PRABHAKARA RAO

¶78

SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶79

¶80

APHC010177342019

¶81

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶82

[3396]

¶83

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶84

MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶85

PRESENT

¶86

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7676 of 2019

Between:

B Konda Babu,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of A P and Others

¶92

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶93

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶94

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶95

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶96

P V S S S RAMA RAO

¶97

GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶98

P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶99

SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶100

APHC010177272019

¶101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶102

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶103

[3396]

¶104

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶105

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶106

PRESENT

¶107

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7692/2019

Between:

P Vishnu Murthy,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶113

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶114

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶115

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶116

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶117

P V S S S RAMA RAO

¶118

GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶119

P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶120

SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶121

¶122

APHC010177292019

¶123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶124

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶125

[3396]

¶126

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶127

PRESENT

¶128

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7731/2019

Between:

B Pitchi Babu,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of A P and Others

¶134

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶135

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶136

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶137

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶138

P V S S S RAMA RAO

¶139

GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AP)

¶140

P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶141

SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶142

APHC010177352019

¶143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶144

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶145

[3396]

¶146

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶147

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶148

PRESENT

¶149

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶150

WRIT PETITION No. 7749/2019

Between:

N V Nagalakshmi,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶156

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶157

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶158

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶159

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶160

P V S S S RAMA RAO

¶161

GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶162

P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶163

SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶164

¶165

APHC010177382019

¶166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶167

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶168

[3396]

¶169

MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶170

PRESENT

¶171

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7952/2019

Between:

G V Ram Kumar,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of AP and Others

¶177

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶178

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶179

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶180

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶181

P V S S S RAMA RAO

¶182

GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶183

P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶184

SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶185

APHC010177412019

¶186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶187

[3396]

¶188

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶189

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶190

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 8179/2019

¶191

Between:

¶192

T Venkata Satyanarayana,

¶193

...PETITIONER

¶194

AND

¶195

The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶196

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶197

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶198

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶199

P V S S S RAMA RAO

¶200

GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶201

P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶202

K RAMAKANTH REDDY

¶203

SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶204

¶205

APHC010939092018

¶206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶207

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶208

[3181]

¶209

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶210

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CONTEMPT CASE No. 3338/2018

¶211

Between:

¶212

Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic Employees Union Joint Action Committee

...PETITIONER

AND

Sri Narender Singh

...CONTEMNOR

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶218

SURESH KUMAR POTTURI

¶219

Counsel for the Contemnor:

¶220

P S P SURESH KUMAR

¶221

This Court made the following

¶222

COMMON ORDER:

¶223

1. Since the parties and the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are identical, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order.

¶224

Background of the Petitions

¶225

2. The Petitioners, comprising both teaching and non-teaching staff employed at Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic College, a private unaided institution functioning without state financial support, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Their grievances arise from the persistent failure of the College management to disburse salaries, illegal retrenchment of staff members, and attempts

¶226

¶227

to close the institution without lawful settlement of dues. The Petitioners

¶228

assert that the non-payment of wages and unilateral employment terminations are in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the principles of natural justice, and the norms laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

¶229

Reliefs Sought

¶230

3. In W.P. No.17178/2018, the Petitioners seeks a declaration that the inaction on the part of the Respondents with regard to the enquiry initiated vide proceedings dated 02.09.2016 (Letter No. H2/1102/2014) is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional. They also pray for a direction to the authorities to complete the said enquiry and ensure payment of outstanding salaries to the staff of the college.

¶231

4. In W.P. No.6415/2019, the Petitioners challenge the decision of the official Respondents to permit the 6^th Respondent institution to initiate closure proceedings without settling salary dues and other legal benefits to the Petitioners and without taking action on their representation dated 06.03.2019.

¶232

5. W.P. Nos.7669, 7952, 8179, 7749, 7731, 7692, 7676, and 7671 of 2019 challenge termination orders dated 10.06.2019. The Petitioners contend that these orders were issued unilaterally, without affording them an opportunity to be heard, and without disbursing arrears of salaries or other benefits. The Petitioners pray for the setting aside of the

¶233

¶234

termination orders and reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

¶235

Stand of the Respondents in the counters

¶236

6. A common counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.6/College. The 6^th Respondent contends that it is a private unaided Polytechnic College established in 1982imparting technical education to the students, and it does not receive any financial support from the State Government. Therefore, it does not fall within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. It asserts that the Petitioners have bypassed the remedy of appeal available under Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, and hence, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. It was further submitted that the institution has been under considerable financial strain due to dwindling admissions and reduced fee reimbursement by the Government. This necessitated the retrenchment of excess staff, for which requisite permission was sought and granted by Respondent No.2 under Section 83 of the Act. The College emphasizes that it has been paying salaries from its own funds without extracting work from retrenched staff, and the continued operation under such financial duress is untenable.

¶237

7. Common Counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/State that their role is restricted to the conduct of examinations and granting affiliations through the State Board of Technical Education and Training

¶238

¶239

(SBTET). They assert that they have no statutory authority to fix wages or intervene in employment matters of private unaided institutions. They also claim ignorance of the representations allegedly submitted by the Petitioners.

¶240

Arguments advanced at the Bar

¶241

8. Heard learned counsels appearing on both the sides. Perused the material available on record.

¶242

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioners that the College, though unaided, performs a public function by imparting technical education, which is a critical component. It is stated that the respondent authorities cannot permit the respondent No.6/College to close the college without paying wages and other benefits to the petitioners as per law. They cite various Government circulars and AICTE guidelines that mandate the payment of salaries as per prescribed norms. Notably, Memo dated 30.03.2001 issued by the Commissioner of Technical Education directed private Polytechnic colleges to implement AICTE pay scales (1986) without delay, warning that failure to do so would result in withdrawal of AICTE approval.

¶243

10. It is contended that despite repeated representations and an interim order by this Court in W.P. No.17178/2018, the College failed to pay the salaries, prompting the Petitioners to approach multiple fora including the Lokayukta and the Labour Department. The Petitioners

¶244

¶245

contend that their service conditions are governed by statutory and quasi-statutory directives, and therefore, they are entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. They further argue that their sudden termination, after years of dedicated service, is not only a breach of natural justice but also a calculated attempt to dismantle their rights. The closure proceedings initiated by the College are termed mala fide, intended to defeat the legitimate claims of the employees. It is strenuously argued that the official respondents cannot allow Respondent No.6 to take steps to close the college without taking any action on their representation dated 06.03.2019 for settlement of all wages and other benefits to the Petitioners as per law before closing the College.

¶246

11. Learned counsel would also submit that the very purpose of establishing AICTE by an Act of Parliament is meant for maintaining norms and standards in the technical education system, the procedure prescribed by AICTE are applicable to all the Polytechnic Colleges in the State. It has also been emphasised that this Court, while granting interim relief in W.P. No.17178/2018, had directed the Respondents to consider and act on the Petitioners' representations regarding the implementation of AICTE pay norms. However, the non-compliance led to the filing of Contempt Case No.3338/2018. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, AICTE issued a Show Cause Notice to the College for

¶247

¶248

violating the approval terms and eventually placed the institution under

¶249

the "No Admission" category for the academic year 2019-20.

¶250

12. Learned Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the respondent authorities were not aware of the representation made by the Petitioner Union to Respondent No.3. It was stated that W.P. No.6415 of 2019 was filed by the Union representing both teaching and non-teaching staff of the 6^th Respondent College, primarily to address the non-payment of wages. It was further submitted that since the College is a private unaided institution, the recruitment and payment of staff salaries are within the exclusive domain of the College management. Consequently, Respondents 1 and 2 do not have the legal authority to intervene in salary disputes of staff members employed in unaided institutions.

¶251

13. Learned Government Pleader emphasized that the principal function of the State Board of Technical Education and Training (SBTET) is limited to conducting examinations and awarding diplomas to students of Polytechnic Colleges. At no point has SBTET prescribed or regulated the wage structure of employees working in such institutions. Nonetheless, a Memo dated 30.03.2001 was issued to all private unaided Polytechnic Colleges urging them to implement AICTE scales for their teaching staff. The memo also warned that failure to implement

¶252

¶253

the same could result in a recommendation to AICTE for withdrawal of academic approval for the year 2001-2002.

¶254

14. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th Respondent argued that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable as the Petitioners failed to avail themselves of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act. The College, being affiliated but unaided, receives no financial support from the Government and has been facing significant financial constraints due to the proliferation of Polytechnic Colleges and resultant dilution of student admissions. As a consequence of this dwindling financial viability, it is not in a position to sustain the employment costs of staff. Salaries, to the extent paid, have been met from private funds. The College contends that no statutory duty enforceable in writ jurisdiction has been breached and prays for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

¶255

Consideration by the Court

¶256

15. The fact remains that Respondent No.6/College authorities is under „No Admission‟ category as it could not get approval of AICTE for the courses run by it.

¶257

16. Petitioners in W.P. Nos.7669, 7671,7676, 7692, 7731, 7749, 7952 and 8179 of 2009 are seeking a declaration that the Proceedings dated 10.06.2019, vide which they were terminated are without following

¶258

¶259

the due process of law. As seen from the Proceedings of termination dated 10.06.2019 issued by respondent No.6/College, it was issued as

¶260

per Section 80(1) of A.P. Education Act, 1982, which reads as under:

¶261

Section 80: Appeal against orders of punishment imposed on employees of Private Institutions:

¶262

1) Any employee who is dismissed, removed or reduced in

¶263

rank may, prefer an appeal against the orders of the competent authority within 30 days of the receipt of the order by him.

¶264

17. It is clear that no appeal has been preferred by any of the Writ Petitioners before the competent authority questioning the termination Proceedings dated 10.06.2019. It is to be noted that WP No.9842 of 2019 has been filed by the respondent No.6 to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in not disposing of the Petitioner‟s representation vide letter dated 24.07.2017 and its reminder on 09.10.2017 as illegal and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the said representation. This Court by Order dated 06.04.2021 allowed the said Writ Petition directing respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the letters addressed by the respondent No.6. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 accorded permission vide Proceedings No.E3/727/2 008, dated

¶265

22.09.2021 for retrenchment of one teaching staff and 13 non-teaching staff under Section 83 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982.

¶266

¶267

18. Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.6415 of 2019 are such persons, who were retrenched with the permission of competent authority and that the said Petitioners prayed for not to initiate any action for closure of the college pending payment of salaries and the petitioners in other Writ Petitions impugned the termination orders dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.6. No doubt, respondent No.3 is the apex body for closure of the college. The petitioners are working as non-teaching staff in the respondent No.6-College, which is a private unaided polytechnic college

¶268

19. At this juncture, it becomes imperative to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in St.Mary’s Education Society & Anr V. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & ors¹ , wherein it was concluded thus;

¶269

“ 68 . We may sum up our final conclusions as under:−

¶270

(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

¶271

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 708

¶272

¶273

collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public.

¶274

(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 indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the status of “State” within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element.

¶275

(c) It must be consequently held that while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public

¶276

¶277

function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service.

¶278

(d) Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided the school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the term, an employee of a non−teaching staff engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration or internal management is only an agency created by it. It is immaterial whether “A” or “B” is employed by school to discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract between a school and non−teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non−teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered by the court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law

¶279

¶280

and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty.

¶281

(e) From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it is apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. In other words, the action challenged has no public element and writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the action was essentially of a private character.”

¶282

(emphasis supplied)

¶283

20. While dealing with the similar issue, in A.Mohan and others State of Telangana and others² learned single Judge of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad held at paragraphs 13 and 15 as under:

¶284

“13. But to say that every Society or Corporation imparting education is discharging a public duty and is amenable to Writ jurisdiction, in my humble opinion, is not correct. Engagement of staff or employees in every private unaided educational institution cannot be said to be a public function. It is a purely private arrangement made by the said institution to carry out its aims and objectives. Only where a public function breach is alleged, then a Writ Petition would lie and not otherwise. If contention of petitioners is accepted, it would open the flood gates and every dispute in every private unaided school/college between

¶285

2017(6) ALT 6

¶286

¶287

its management and academic staff would then brought before the High court in judicial review.

¶288

¶289

In the present case, the 4^th respondent-Society is not a Deemed University and the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act do not apply to it. Merely because imparting education is a public function, it cannot be said that engagement of employees for the said purpose is also a public function. It is purely a private arrangement made by the Society with the petitioners and so the rights claimed by the petitioners are purely of a private character and relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted to them. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Veer Pal Singh and others Vs. Gandhi Eye Hospital Trust, Alligarh and others (7) MANU/UP/1418/2017 also took a similar view in regard to maintainability of a Writ Petition against the respondent in the said case which runs an Eye hospital when services of its employee were terminated and he approached the High Court.”

¶290

(emphasis supplied)

¶291

21. In Satimbla Sharma and others v. St.Paul’s Senior Secondary

¶292

School and others³ the Hon‟ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 23 to 27 held as under:

¶293

3(2011) 13 SCC 760

¶294

¶295

We also do not think that the Court could issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay the salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to teachers of Government schools or Government aided schools. This is because the salary and allowances of teachers of a private unaided school is a matter of contract between the school and the teacher and is not within the domain of public law.

¶296

In Sushmita Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity & Ors. [(2006) 7 SCC 680 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1741], the teachers of a recognized private school known as Ballygunge Siksha Sadan in Calcutta filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the authorities of the school to fix the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and to remove all anomalies in the scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission as extended to other Government aided schools and Government schools and this Court held that in the absence of statutory provision no such direction can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶297

Where a statutory provision casts a duty on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and allowances to its teachers as are being paid teachers of Government aided schools, then a writ of mandamus to the school could be issued to enforce such statutory duty. But in the present case, there

¶298

¶299

was no statutory provision requiring a private unaided school to pay to its teachers the same salary and allowances as were payable to teachers of Government schools and therefore a mandamus could not be issued to pay to the teachers of private recognized unaided schools the same salary and allowances as were payable to Government institutions.

¶300

In K. Krishnamacharyulu and Others vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Another (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, executive instructions were issued by the Government that the scales of pay of Laboratory Assistants as non-teaching staff of private colleges shall be at par with the government employees and this Court held that even though there were no statutory rules, the Laboratory Assistants as non-teaching staff of private college were entitled to the parity of the pay-scales as per the executive instructions of the Government and the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to issue a writ for payment of pay on par with government employees. In the present case, there are no executive instructions issued by the Government requiring private schools to pay the same salary and allowances to their teachers as are being paid to teachers of Government schools or Government aided schools.

¶301

¶302

We cannot also issue a mandamus to respondent nos.1 and 2 on the ground that the conditions of provisional affiliation of schools prescribed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations stipulate in clause (5)(b) that the salary and allowances and other benefits of the staff of the affiliated school must be comparable to that prescribed by the State Department of Education because such conditions for provisional affiliation are not statutory provisions or executive instructions, which are enforceable in law. Similarly, we cannot issue a mandamus to give effect to the recommendations of the report of Education Commission 1964-66 that the scales of pay of school teachers belonging to the same category but working under different managements such as government, local bodies or private managements should be the same, unless the recommendations are incorporated in an executive instruction or a statutory provision. We, therefore, affirm the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.”

¶303

(emphasis supplied)

¶304

22. The maintainability of Writ Petitions in service disputes concerning private unaided institutions has been examined by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court in several landmark judgments referred supra. It is clear that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in service matters involving private unaided institutions unless there exists a public

¶305

¶306

law element or the service conditions are governed by statutory rules. In other words, in the absence of the absence of statutory mandates renders service conditions unenforceable through a writ of mandamus. The Hon'ble Courts have cautioned against judicial interference in private employment arrangements unless a statutory breach or public law violation is established.

¶307

23. It is thus a settled principle of law that educational institutions, though engaged in public service, remain outside the purview of Article 226 in employment matters, unless there exists a statutory obligation binding upon them. The regulatory circulars and guidelines by AICTE or the State Government, unless statutorily incorporated or backed by legislation, cannot be enforced through a Writ Petition. Coming to the facts of the present case nothing has been placed on record to show that in a statute imposing obligation on respondent No.6 to pay salaries as per AICTE norms. Admittedly, respondent No.6 is not receiving any aid from the Central /State Governments.

¶308

24. In view of the authoritative legal position and the facts of the present case, this Court finds no statutory breach or public law element sufficient to sustain the writ petitions. The Petitioners have been unable to demonstrate that their employment terms were governed by enforceable statutory rules or that the actions of the 6^th Respondent were in discharge of a statutory public duty. Consequently, the grievances

¶309

¶310

raised by the Petitioners fall within the realm of private nature and must

¶311

be pursued before competent forums.

¶312

25. With respect to Contempt Case No.3338/2018, the regulatory actions taken by AICTE, including the issuance of show cause notices and the imposition of the "No Admission" category for non-compliance, constitute substantial compliance with the directions of this Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that no further orders are warranted.

¶313

26. On conglomeration of the present facts and circumstances of the cases and in the light of the legal position referred to supra , it is not apposite to issue Writ of mandamus as prayed for.

¶314

27. In result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies before appropriate forum for recovery of their salaries according to law. No order as to costs.

¶315

28. In view of the above discussion and the disposal of W.P. No.17178 of 2018, the CC No.3338 of 2018 stands closed as well.

¶316

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶317

DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶318

30.12.2024 Mjl/*

¶319

¶320

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶321