The Court held that a privately managed unaided school is not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12. Consequently, the High Court lacks writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate salary disputes, which are matters of contract.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
KUMAR MANOJ #1# 2015.02.06 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.20876 of 2008 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20876 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.7.2014
Pawan Kumar
.............Petitioner
v.
Central Board of School Education, Shiksha Kendra and Anr.
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1-CBSE. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Jaswant Singh,J
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the impugned order dated 27.11.2008 (P.1) issued by respondent No.2Vaish Model Sr. Secondary School, Bhiwani (for short “School”) vide which his claim for salary as per Bye-laws of the CBSE has been rejected.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Class-IV employee (Peon-cum-Conductor) with respondent No.2-School and is getting a monthly fixed salary of Rs.580/- only whereas the other Class-IV employees working in the school are getting the salary as per the Bye-laws issued by the CBSE and thus, the action of the School is arbitrary and discriminatory.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the School is privately managed and unaided by the
#2#
CWP No.20876 of 2008 (O&M)
Government and thus, does not fall within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, hence the present writ is not maintainable.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.
It is not in dispute that respondent No.2-School with whom the petitioner is working, is not getting any grant-in-aid from the Government, rather is purely a privately managed Institution. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, filing of the present writ petition for redressal of the grievance of an aggrieved party like the petitioner is not the appropriate remedy and reference in this regard may be made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.406 of 2010 decided on 22.9.2010 titled Satwinder kaur Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Consequently, respondent No.2-School being purely privately managed Institution cannot be construed to be an instrumentality of the State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution and thus will not be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as Satimbla Sharma and Others Vs. St. Paul S. Senior Secondary School (2011) 13 Supreme Court cases 760 in case of Teachers working in the privately managed unaided School has held that 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”. If at all the petitioner is having any grievance against the School for enforcement of his right under any
CWP No.20876 of 2008 (O&M)
#3#
Bye-laws or Regulation in vogue, then he is at liberty to approach the
appropriate forum according to law.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for mandamus is
made out.
Dismissed. July 28, 2014 (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a privately managed unaided school falls within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Whether this Court has writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a grievance regarding salary arrears in an unaided private school.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satwinder kaur Vs. Union of India and OrsReferred¶23
LPA No.406 of 2010
Satimbla Sharma and Others Vs. St. Paul S. Senior Secondary SchoolReferred¶24
Satimbla Sharma and Others Vs. St. Paul S. Senior Secondary School (2011) 13 Supreme Court cases 760
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Kumar
Central Board of School Education
Shiksha Kendra
Vaish Model Sr. Secondary School
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
