Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Private School Management Committees Under Article 12: Trigun Chand Thakur vs. State of Bihar (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 09, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 739

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a private school’s management committee be considered a “State” entity, making it subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving a Sanskrit teacher’s termination from a private school in Bihar. The core issue was whether the management committee of a private school, even if aided by the government, falls under the definition of “State” as per Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, upheld the decision of the Patna High Court, stating that the management committee of a private school is not “State” under Article 12. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The appellant, Trigun Chand Thakur, was appointed as a Sanskrit teacher on January 1, 1985. On September 6, 1994, the School Department issued a show cause notice to him based on certain allegations. Subsequently, on October 1, 1994, he was informed of his suspension due to his absence on the eve of Independence Day and Teachers’ Day. Aggrieved by this suspension, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, his services were terminated on December 23, 1994.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the High Court disposed of the writ petition on August 31, 1995, directing the appellant to approach the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The Chairman, on August 3, 1996, ordered the reinstatement of the appellant, finding the termination disproportionate. However, the Managing Committee appealed to the Special Director, Secondary Education, who remanded the matter back to the Chairman on December 13, 1997. Aggrieved by this remand, the appellant filed another writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court on April 29, 1999, citing the judgment in *Chandra Nath Thakur v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors.*, 1999 (1) PLJR 529, stating that writ petitions are not maintainable in matters of termination by private school management committees. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed this order on January 21, 2008, also relying on *Chandra Nath Thakur*.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which defines the term “State.” This definition is crucial in determining which entities are subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant part of Article 12 states:

“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981, also plays a role in this case, as the appellant sought recourse through the Board. Section 24 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981, provides for appeals against the orders of the Managing Committee.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the Managing Committee of the private school should be considered “State” under Article 12 because it receives financial aid from the government and is regulated by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The appellant contended that the termination of his services was illegal and disproportionate. The appellant relied on the order passed by the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board who had directed reinstatement of the appellant.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Managing Committee of a private school does not fall under the definition of “State” under Article 12. They relied on the judgment of the Patna High Court in *Chandra Nath Thakur v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors.*, 1999 (1) PLJR 529, which held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the management committee of a private school, even if it is aided by the government. The respondents contended that the consent order passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. NO.10698 of 1994 cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

✓ Whether the management committee of a private school, even if aided by the State Government or the Board, is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the judgment of the Patna High Court in *Chandra Nath Thakur v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors.*, 1999 (1) PLJR 529. This case held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the management committee of a private school, even if it is aided by the government.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal position that private entities, even if they receive some form of government aid or are subject to regulatory oversight, do not automatically become “State” under Article 12. The Court emphasized the distinction between government-controlled entities and private bodies, even if they are within the ambit of some regulatory framework. The Court’s reasoning focused on the fact that the management committee of the private school was not an entity that was substantially funded or controlled by the government, and hence, could not be considered “State.”

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Article 12 and the application of the precedent set by the Patna High Court. The Court did not find any reason to deviate from the established legal position. The Court observed that the consent order passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. NO.10698 of 1994 cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court and does not make the Managing Committee “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

“Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, we do not find any ground to take a different view.”

“The Division Bench also pointed out that the consent order passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. NO.10698 of 1994 cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court and does not make the Managing Committee “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”

“In the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court has also placed reliance on Chandra Nath Thakur v. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors. , 1999 (1) PLJR 529 and held that a teacher of a privately managed school, even though financially aided by the State Government or the Board, cannot maintain a writ petition against an order of termination from service passed by the Management Committee.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Management committees of private schools are generally not considered “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, even if they receive financial aid or are regulated by the government.
• ✓ Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are generally not maintainable against private school management committees for service-related matters.
• ✓ The judgment reinforces the distinction between government-controlled entities and private bodies in the context of Article 12.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the existing legal position that private entities, even when aided or regulated by the government, do not automatically fall under the definition of “State” under Article 12. The ratio decidendi of this case is that the management committee of a private school is not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This case does not change the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this case, upheld the Patna High Court’s decision, clarifying that management committees of private schools are not considered “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. This means that employees of such schools cannot typically file writ petitions against the management committees for service-related disputes. The decision emphasizes the distinction between government-controlled entities and private bodies, even if the latter receive some form of government aid or are subject to regulatory oversight.