The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition held that an education institution may be performing myriad functions touching upon various facets of public life but a contract of service being private in nature would not fall within the realm of public functions.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Mathur passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Surya Prakash Mishra.
The Petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.12.2023 whereby petitioner was removed from service. Also under challenge is the order of termination dated 09.06.2023 alongwith a prayer for opposite parties to be directed to pay subsistence allowance and other increments due to be paid to petitioner.
Rishabh Tripathi, State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that the opposite parties no 2 to 5 which who are authority of the D.A.V College and D.A.V Public School are private organizations and since petitioner is seeking quashing of orders pertaining to his services, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case on St Marys Education Society versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & others (2023) 4 SCC 498.
Refuting submissions advanced, counsel for petitioner on the other hand submitted that a writ petition would be maintainable even against a private organization wherein the nature of duties and functions obligated to be performed by such a private organization or public in nature.
It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment of St Marys Education Society (supra) would be inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since the aforesaid citation pertained to a case of non teaching staff whereas petitioner was employed as a teacher with the institution concerned.
It is further submitted that the petitioner being a teacher was imparting public function pertaining to imparting education to children of the institution concerned and therefore his removal from service would come within the realm of public duty.
“Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is although evident that the case of St. Marys Education Society (supra) pertained to non-teaching staff whereas petitioner was a teacher in the institution concerned, nonetheless the proposition of law regarding maintainability of petition against a private organization in the considered opinion of the the Court is the same.
In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly held that employees of a private organization would not have the right to invoke power under Article 226 in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by statutory provisions. It has also been held that an education institution may be performing myriad functions touching upon various facets of public life but a contract of service being private in nature would not fall within the realm of public functions.
In the considered opinion of the Court, the aforesaid judgment is clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances where petitioner is seeking to enforce the contract of service entered between him and the college concerned”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.