Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against Private Educational Societies in Service Disputes: Army Welfare Education Society vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2024) INSC 501 (9 July 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 9 July 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 501

Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J.

Can a private educational society, despite performing a public function, be subjected to writ jurisdiction in service-related disputes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the boundaries of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES), a private unaided society, could be considered a “State” or an “authority” amenable to writ jurisdiction in a dispute concerning its employees’ service conditions. The bench comprised Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, with the majority opinion authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a situation where the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) took over the management of a school previously run by St. Gabriel’s Academy. The teaching and non-teaching staff of St. Gabriel’s Academy were absorbed by AWES. The staff then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, challenging the change in their service conditions. The High Court ruled in favor of the staff, directing AWES not to vary their service conditions to their disadvantage. AWES then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court’s single judge initially ruled in favor of the employees, stating that their service conditions should not be altered to their disadvantage. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision, leading AWES to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially passed an interim order on 15.02.2021, and subsequently stayed the operation of the High Court’s judgment on 23.07.2021, subject to certain conditions.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 12 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 12 defines the term “State” for the purpose of enforcing fundamental rights, while Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and “for any other purpose.” The Court also considered the implications of the Societies Registration Act under which AWES was registered, and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Arguments

Appellant (AWES) Arguments:

• AWES is a private unaided society, not a “State” under Article 12.
• The employees were originally employed by St. Gabriel’s Academy, a private minority institution, and there was no privity of contract between the staff and AWES.
• The service conditions of the employees are not governed by any statutory obligation, and imposing the previous service conditions would create two sets of employees with different conditions at APS No. 2, Roorkee.
• The school is self-financing and manages all expenditures from school fees, and the financial burden of the respondents’ demands would be too high.

Respondents (Employees) Arguments:

• AWES is a “State” under Article 12 because it is linked to the Ministry of Defence, with key positions held by Army officers.
• The school is affiliated with the CBSE and governed by its norms, making it subject to statutory provisions.
• CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws mandate that schools pay salaries comparable to State Government schools.
• The employees had a legitimate expectation that their service conditions would not be altered to their disadvantage.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, making a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable against it?
2. Even if AWES is assumed to be performing a public duty amenable to writ jurisdiction, are all its decisions subject to judicial review, or only those with a public law element?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888 (Supreme Court of India): Established that a contract of personal service cannot be enforced specifically, with certain exceptions.
• J. Tiwari v. Jawala Devi Vidya Mandir, (1979) 4 SCC 160 (Supreme Court of India): Held that the rights of employees in private institutions are governed by contract terms.
• Dipak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instruction, 1987 (2) SCC 252 (Supreme Court of India): Reaffirmed that an aided college is not a statutory body and cannot be forced to reinstate employees.
• Tekraj v. Union of India, 1988 (1) SCC 236 (Supreme Court of India): Determined that the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies was not a “State” despite government funding.
• Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V. R. Rudani & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 691 (Supreme Court of India): Held that a writ can be issued against a body performing public duty, even if not a “State” under Article 12.
• K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Anr., 1997 (3) SCC 571 (Supreme Court of India): Emphasized that teachers in educational institutions have a public interest in their duties.
• Satimbla Sharma v. St. Paul’s Senior Secondary School, (2011) 13 SCC 760 (Supreme Court of India): Ruled that a private unaided school is not obligated to pay the same salaries as government schools without a statutory provision.
• St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors., (2023) 4 SCC 498 (Supreme Court of India): Clarified that private unaided minority institutions are not subject to writ jurisdiction in service matters.
• Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499 (Supreme Court of India): Defined the doctrine of legitimate expectation and its limitations.
• Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381 (Supreme Court of India): Explained the elements of legitimate expectation.
• Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 161 (Supreme Court of India): Differentiated legitimate expectation from anticipation.
• Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331 (Supreme Court of India): Held that a private body can be amenable to writ jurisdiction if it performs public functions.
• Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava, (2020) 14 SCC 449 (Supreme Court of India): Followed Ramesh Ahluwalia, but was distinguished by the Court in the present case.
• Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya, (2019) 16 SCC 303 (Supreme Court of India): Held that not every public function makes a body amenable to writ jurisdiction.
• Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733 (Supreme Court of India): Classified entities against whom a writ petition may be maintainable.
• Vidya Ram Misra v. Shri Jai Narain College, (1972) 1 SCC 623 (Supreme Court of India): Held that a lecturer’s remedy for breach of contract is a suit for damages, not a writ.
• Uttam Chand Rawat v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 ALL LJ 393 (FB) (Allahabad High Court Full Bench): Discussed the twin tests for maintainability of writ petitions.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Article 12 of the Constitution of India: Definition of “State”.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Power of High Courts to issue writs.
• Societies Registration Act: Under which AWES was registered.
• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Governs elementary education.
• CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws: Norms for schools affiliated with CBSE.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain [CITATION]: Used to establish that a contract of personal service cannot be enforced, except in specific circumstances.
• Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V. R. Rudani & Ors. [CITATION]: Explained to clarify that while a writ can be issued against a body performing public duty, it must have a public law element.
• Satimbla Sharma v. St. Paul’s Senior Secondary School [CITATION]: Used to support the view that private unaided schools are not obligated to pay the same salaries as government schools without a statutory provision.
• St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. [CITATION]: Used to emphasize that private unaided minority institutions are not subject to writ jurisdiction in service matters.
• Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [CITATION]: Used to classify entities against whom a writ petition may be maintainable and to show that regulatory provisions do not confer “State” status.
• Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab [CITATION] and Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava [CITATION]: Distinguished, noting that these cases were decided on different facts and did not consider the full scope of the law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the distinction between public law and private law. The Court emphasized that while private educational institutions may perform a public function by imparting education, their employment relationships are essentially contractual and governed by private law. The Court was keen to avoid expanding the scope of writ jurisdiction to cover purely private disputes, which would undermine the established legal framework. The Court also considered the financial implications for AWES and the potential for administrative chaos if the previous service conditions were enforced.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• “The relationship between the respondents herein and the appellant society is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract.”
• “If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element.”
• “The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents.”

The Court rejected the argument of legitimate expectation, stating:

• “Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents to show that any express or implied promise was made by the appellant regarding keeping their salary and service conditions intact.”
• “There have been no past negotiations or dealings between the respondents and the appellant society as the dispute arose as soon as the appellant took over the administration of the school.”

Key Takeaways

• Private educational institutions, even if performing a public function, are not automatically subject to writ jurisdiction in service matters.
• Service disputes in private educational institutions are generally considered private law matters, unless governed by statutory provisions.
• The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to purely contractual relationships between private entities.
• The distinction between public law and private law must be maintained to avoid overreach of writ jurisdiction.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that while the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, the respondents (employees) shall continue to serve on the terms and conditions stipulated by the appellant society, and the appellant society shall not discharge them from service.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private educational society in a service dispute, unless the service conditions are governed by statutory provisions or the action has a public law element. This judgment clarifies the boundaries of writ jurisdiction and reinforces the distinction between public and private law. This case also reaffirms that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply in purely private contractual relationships. This ruling clarifies the legal position that not every body performing a public function is amenable to writ jurisdiction, especially in matters of private contracts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Army Welfare Education Society, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that AWES is not a “State” under Article 12, and that service disputes in private educational institutions are not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless there is a public law element or statutory regulation of service conditions. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the distinction between public and private law, and clarified the inapplicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in this context. The employees were allowed to continue their service under the terms of AWES.