Supreme Court Upholds Reinstatement of Teacher: Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs. Asha Srivastava (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal No.9166 of 2013
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Can a private school that receives government aid for dearness allowance be subject to a writ petition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the termination of a teacher. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in ordering the reinstatement of a teacher who was terminated by a private school, and whether the school was subject to writ jurisdiction.

This case revolves around a teacher, Asha Srivastava, who was terminated by Marwari Balika Vidyalaya, a private school. The High Court of Calcutta had ordered her reinstatement, which was challenged by the school before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

Asha Srivastava applied for the post of Assistant Teacher at Marwari Balika Vidyalaya in 1985. After an interview, she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation starting April 1, 1995. The school sent all necessary documents to the District Inspector of Schools on March 31, 1995, seeking approval for her appointment.

On January 2, 1997, the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Calcutta, forwarded the papers to the Director of School Education, West Bengal, for their opinion. The Director requested a declaration from Asha Srivastava that she would not claim any arrears of salary. She reluctantly agreed to this condition.

Due to delays in granting approval, Asha Srivastava filed a Writ Application No. 3232 of 2000 before the High Court on November 27, 2000. She sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Director of School Education and the District Inspector of Schools to approve her appointment. The High Court disposed of the petition on December 18, 2000, directing the Director of School Education to consider the matter within six weeks.

Following the High Court’s order, the school issued a show-cause notice to Asha Srivastava for filing the writ application, claiming it was a breach of school discipline. She was suspended for 12 days, from December 21, 2000, to January 1, 2001. After her suspension, she was allowed to sign the attendance register but was not permitted to take classes. Despite being asked not to attend from February 15, 2001, she continued to attend school. On February 19, 2001, she was forcibly removed from the school with police assistance and was threatened with termination. She was officially terminated on February 20, 2001.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Asha Srivastava challenged her termination by filing a Writ Application before the High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition on August 20, 2001, stating that the school was a privately managed primary school and not recognized by the State Government, thus a writ application was not maintainable. The Single Judge, however, allowed Asha Srivastava to file a suit to seek the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

Asha Srivastava then appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, on January 30, 2009, allowed her appeal, set aside the termination order, and directed the school to reinstate her with full salary, allowances, and service benefits. This order of the Division Bench was challenged by the school before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the requirement of approval for both appointment and termination of teachers in private schools. The Supreme Court highlighted that the government had made approval of appointments necessary to prevent arbitrary appointments. The court reasoned that if approval is needed for appointment, it is also necessary for termination.

The Supreme Court referred to Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, as a procedural safeguard for employees, ensuring that termination or dismissal orders are not passed without prior approval of the Director of Education. This provision is intended to prevent arbitrary or unreasonable actions against employees of recognized private schools.

The Court also discussed the intent behind the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, emphasizing that it was enacted to provide security of tenure to school employees and to regulate their employment terms. The Court noted that while the functioning of aided and unaided educational institutions should be free from unnecessary governmental interference, the conditions of employment of the employees must be protected.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (Marwari Balika Vidyalaya):

• The school argued that a writ application against a private unaided school is not maintainable, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Committee of Management, Delhi Public School & Anr. v. M.K. Gandhi & Ors., Sushmita Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Shiksha Samity & Ors., and Satimbla Sharma & Ors. v. St. Paul’s Senior Secondary School & Ors.
• The school contended that the High Court should have examined the legality of the termination order and the grounds on which it was passed. The school claimed that the teacher was insubordinate and used foul language, and that she did not provide a satisfactory explanation for her conduct.
• The school also argued that the Division Bench should not have ordered back wages as there was no prayer for it in the writ application.

Arguments of the Respondent (Asha Srivastava):

• The teacher argued that the approval of the concerned government authority was necessary for both appointment and termination, and that her termination was illegal and void as no such approval was obtained. She relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors. and Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors.
• She submitted that since no departmental enquiry was conducted before her termination, the order was illegal and that she was rightly ordered to be reinstated with back wages.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• The main question for consideration in the appeal is as to maintainability of writ petition as against private school receiving grant in aid to the extent of dearness allowance.
• Whether the High Court was correct in ordering the reinstatement of the teacher.
• Whether the High Court was correct in ordering back wages.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several cases and legal provisions in its judgment:

Cases:

• Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 331 – The Court relied on this case to support the maintainability of writ petitions against private unaided educational institutions performing public functions.
• Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 541 – This case was used to emphasize the necessity of prior approval from the Director of Education for termination of employees in private schools.
• Committee of Management, Delhi Public School & Anr. v. M.K. Gandhi & Ors. (2015) 17 SCC 353 – The Court distinguished this case, noting that it did not involve the question of approval by a government authority.
• Satimbla Sharma & Ors. v. St. Paul’s Senior Secondary School & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 760 – The Court distinguished this case, noting that it dealt with equal pay for equal work and not the maintainability of writ petitions.
• Sushmita Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Shiksha Samity & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 680 – This case was distinguished as it concerned the implementation of pay commission recommendations and not the maintainability of writ petitions.
• Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 369 – This case was used to highlight that a stigmatic order of dismissal passed without holding an enquiry is bad in law.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – This provision was highlighted as a procedural safeguard for employees, requiring prior approval for termination or dismissal.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors. [ (2012) 12 SCC 331 ], reiterating that writ petitions are maintainable against private unaided educational institutions performing public functions.
• The Court followed Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors. [ (2016) 6 SCC 541 ], emphasizing the necessity of prior approval for termination of employees in private schools.
• The Court distinguished Committee of Management, Delhi Public School & Anr. v. M.K. Gandhi & Ors. [ (2015) 17 SCC 353 ], noting that it did not involve the question of approval by a government authority.
• The Court distinguished Satimbla Sharma & Ors. v. St. Paul’s Senior Secondary School & Ors. [ (2011) 13 SCC 760 ], stating that it pertained to equal pay and not the maintainability of writ petitions.
• The Court distinguished Sushmita Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Shiksha Samity & Ors. [ (2006) 7 SCC 680 ], as it dealt with the implementation of pay commission recommendations.
• The Court followed Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr. [ (1984) 2 SCC 369 ], highlighting that a stigmatic order of dismissal without enquiry is illegal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the termination of the teacher was arbitrary and illegal. The Court emphasized that:

• The school did not obtain prior approval from the concerned authorities before terminating the teacher.
• The termination order was stigmatic and was passed without conducting any departmental enquiry.
• The school’s actions were a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both the facts of the case and the legal principles involved. The ratio of fact to law is as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments of the school but found them unpersuasive, especially given the lack of due process in the termination of the teacher. The Court emphasized the need to protect the rights of employees, particularly in educational institutions.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment in Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors., stating, “The words ‘any person or authority’ used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body.”

The Court also noted, “Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available ‘to reach injustice wherever it is found’. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226.”

The Court further stated, “The manner in which termination had been made was clearly arbitrary and the order was illegal and void and thus back wages should follow.”

Key Takeaways

• Maintainability of Writ Petitions: Writ petitions are maintainable against private unaided educational institutions that perform public functions, especially if they receive government aid, such as for dearness allowance.
• Prior Approval for Termination: Private schools must obtain prior approval from the concerned government authorities before terminating the services of their employees.
• Due Process: Termination of employees must follow due process, including conducting a departmental enquiry and providing a reasonable opportunity for the employee to defend themselves.
• Back Wages: If a termination is found to be illegal and arbitrary, the employee is entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the school, thereby upholding the High Court’s order for reinstatement of the teacher with full salary, allowances, and service benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that private unaided educational institutions performing public functions are subject to writ jurisdiction, particularly when they receive government aid. This judgment clarifies that such institutions must adhere to due process and obtain prior approval for termination of employees, thus reinforcing the protection of employee rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs. Asha Srivastava & Ors. reinforces the principle that private educational institutions performing public functions are subject to writ jurisdiction, particularly when they receive government aid. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reinstate the teacher, emphasizing the need for due process and prior approval for termination. This decision protects the rights of employees in private educational institutions and ensures that they are not subjected to arbitrary actions by the management.