The Supreme Court of India recently issued a landmark judgment outlining the boundaries of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution involving a service dispute between an employee and a private unaided school. This case involved a dispute between the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) and its employees.
Key Questions for Consideration:
The issues for consideration framed by the Supreme Court was:
a. Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it? In other words, whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution?
b. Even if it is assumed that the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a body performing public duty amenable to writ jurisdiction, whether all its decisions are subject to judicial review or only those decisions which have public law element therein can be judicially reviewed under the writ jurisdiction?
Context and Arguments:
The appellant, Army Welfare Education Society, argued that it is an unaided private entity established to provide educational facilities for the children of army personnel, including widows and ex-servicemen. The society operates several schools, funded entirely by the fees collected from students.
The appellants contend that a contract of purely personal service between the respondents and their previous employer, St. Gabriel’s Academy, cannot be executed against AWES in a writ petition due to the absence of privity of contract. Furthermore, the appellants argue that the Army Public School, managed under AWES, is self-financing and not dependent on government funding.
On the contrary, the respondents’ counsel argues that AWES is a government-run institution under the Ministry of Defence and thus qualifies as a “State” under Article 12. They assert that AWES and its affiliate, Army Public School-2 in Roorkee, are governed by statutory provisions, making the dispute amenable to writ jurisdiction. They also argue that the service conditions of the respondents are regulated by these statutory provisions, further justifying the writ jurisdiction.
Background of Earlier Rulings:
The Single Judge’s decision entertaining the Writ against AWES holding that the dispute can be adjudicated in Writ Jurisdiction was challenged for its interpretation of public duty. The judge opined that since the school imparts education, a public element is involved. However, it was argued that the learned Single Judge failed to recognize that the dispute pertains to the service conditions between the school and its staff, which falls under private contract law. The Division had upheld the judgment of Single Judge.
Views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
- According to Supreme Court, only when an entity can be considered a “State” under Article 12, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights.
- The Court clarified that in cases of retirement or termination, where no public law element is involved, a writ under Article 226 against a private educational institution is not maintainable. A writ is maintainable only if there is a public law element involved.
- The Court also observed that while the appellant’s school does impart education—a public duty—the relationship between the respondents and AWES remains that of an employee and a private employer based on a private contract. Breaching such a contract does not involve any public law element. Therefore, the school’s role in education does not extend to discharging public duty concerning employee relationships.
- Finally, the Court concluded that even though private educational institutions perform the public function of imparting education, the relationship between their administration and employees is a matter of private contract law. Thus, unless a public law element is evident, disputes in this realm do not warrant adjudication under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
Impact of the Judgment
This judgment sets clear boundaries for writ jurisdiction. It establishes that disputes involving private entities performing public functions can’t be challenged using writ petitions unless a public law element, like violation of statutory rights, is present. This protects private contractual rights while streamlining the use of writ jurisdiction.