P.Lava Kumar Vs the State of Ap

The State of Andhra P, Rep. by its Principal. Secretary to Government Secondary Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶12

Board of Intermediate Education, Rep. by its Secretary,^D.No.48-18- 2/A, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Opp NTR Health University, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

Regional Joint Director, Board of Intermediate Education Rajamundry,

¶14

East Godavari District.

¶15

Regional Inspection Officer, Board of Intermediate Education Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶16

AIIMS Junior College, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent Ch.V.Ramana Murthy, DCCB Colony, Srikakulam Town Srikakulam District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 4 on the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2018 submitted to take action against the respondent institution for non payment of three months' salary of Rs.2,40,000/- due to him, as arbitrary, illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of the Andhra^{PradeshEducation} Act, 1982 and rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salary arrears of Rs.2,40,000/- due to the petitioner's.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2018 submitted to take action against the 5 th respondent institution for non-payment of three months' salary of Rs.2,40,000/- due to him, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS AMBATI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI MUPPALLNANDA NAGA RAVI SHANKAR, AGP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SMT. MARIA RANI MAKKENA REP. SRI K.B. RAMMANNA DORA

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

1

¶26

APHC010115392019

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶28

[3396]

¶29

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 5137/2019

Between:

P. Lava Kumar

...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENT(S) The State of AP and Others

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶40

1.SR1N1VAS AMBATI

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

¶43

2.KB RAMANNA DORA

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution^ofIndiawith

¶46

the following prayer for;

¶47

...To issue a writ order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the petitioner’s representation dated^{27.04.2018submittedto} take action against the 5th respondent institution^{fornonpaymentofthree} months’ salary of Rs. 2,40,000/- due to him as arbitrary,^{illegal,irregular,} arbitrary and violative of the Andhra Pradesh Education^{Act,1982andrules} framed thereunder and offends .Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution^ofIndia

¶48

2

¶49

and consequently direct the respondents to pay the^{salaryarrearsofRs.} 2,40,000/- to the petitioner and pass...”

¶50

Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Maria Rani Makkena representing Sri K.B.Rammanna Dora, learned^{Counselforthe} respondent No.5 and Sri. Muppallnanda Naga Ravi Shankar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶51

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition has been filed seeking indulgence of this^{CourtunderArticle226of} the Constitution seeking direction to the respondent No.5 for payment of three (03) months’ salary i.e. Rs.2,40,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand Only) to the petitioner. Learned counsel would^{submitthatthatthe} petitioner worked as Botany Lecturer in the College^{oftherespondentNo.5} from June, 2016 to April, 2017. He made a representation to the respondent No.5 seeking his salary due from April, 2017 to June,^{2017.Butthereisno} response from the respondent No.5. Hence, the Writ^Petition.

¶52

Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 would submit that the petitioner was employed in the college of the respondent^{No.Sonhourlybasis.} The College is established in the year 2016. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 would submit that without informing the college management, the petitioner has joined in another College as Principal. Thereafter, submitted a representation claiming the alleged salary for three (03) months to a sum of Rs.2,40,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs and Forty Thousand Only). Learned counsel would further submit^thatinfact they have

¶53

3

¶54

J

¶55

given advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) for extracting better work from him. Learned counsel would^{furthersubmitthat} there is no cause of action for filing the present Writ Petition. The petition is not maintainable and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶56

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner^{wouldsubmitthatthe} petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner^{toseekhisrelief} against the respondent No.5 before the civil court.

¶57

The instant case is a dispute between the Private College Management and a Lecturer claiming salary which is alleged to be due^fromthe respondent No.5. The maintainability of Writ Petitions in service disputes concerning private unaided institutions has been examined by the^{Hon’bleSupremeCourt} and this Court in several landmark judgments. It is^{settledthatwritjurisdiction} under Article 226 cannot be invoked in service matters involving private unaided institutions unless there exists a public law^{elementortheservice} conditions are governed by statutory rules. The Hon'ble Courts have cautioned against judicial interference in private^{employmentarrangements} unless a statutory breach or public law violation is^established.

¶58

While dealing with the similar issue, in A.Mohan^{andothersState} of Telangana and others, learned single Judge of the Composite^HighCourtof Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad held at paragraphs 13 and^15asunder:

¶59

“13. But to say that every Society or Corporation imparting education is discharging a public duty and is amenable^toWrit jurisdiction, in my humble opinion, is not correct.^Engagementof

¶60

4

¶61

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^theflood gates and every dispute in every private unaided school/college betweenits management and academic staff would then brought before the High court in judicial review.

¶62

In the present case, the 4th 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^inthe said case which runs an Eye hospital when services of its employee were terminated and he approached the High^Court.”

¶63

(emphasis supplied)

¶64

¶65

In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is

¶66

at liberty to work out his remedies before proper forum according to Governing Rules and law. No Costs.

¶67

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69