Writ Petition cannot be filed in private school service matters
The Supreme Court (SC) says that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained against a private education society for adjudication of private service disputes, in Army welfare education society, New Delhi v Sunil Kumar Sharma & Others [2024 INSC 501].
Writ Petition may lie to HC or SC in violation of fundamental right
The SC however clarified that although a writ jurisdiction could not be invoked against the private institution for adjudication of a private dispute, there is no bar for the High Court to entertain Writ Petitions under Article 226 against the private authority if an authority violates the fundamental right or other legal rights of any person or citizen.
The SC relied on its judgement in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V. R. Rudani & Ors. [(1989) 2 SCC 691], wherein the court spelled out two exceptions to the writ of mandamus. The SC said if the rights claimed are pure of a private character, and if the management of the college is purely a private body “with no public duty”, then mandamus against the private body would not lie.
Writ may lie if the service is governed by statutes
The SC says that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked by the private persons against the private unaided institution for resolving the service-related disputes unless the services rendered by the private persons were governed by the statutory provisions.
A reference was drawn from a case of St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Others, wherein it was held that while a private unaided minority institution might be touching the spheres of public function by performing a public duty, its employees have no right of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provision.
Summing up
In essence, the Court observed that an individual wrong or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
