LexARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY NEW DELHI versus SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2176 : 2024 INSC 501 Army Welfare Education Society New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7256-7259 of 2024) 09 July 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration 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. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.12 and Art.226 – A service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution (Army Welfare Education Society) and its employees – Whether appellant-Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Art.12 – The High Court held that appellant society is a “State” within Art.12 of the Constitution – Correctness: Held: High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents-employees herein holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution – Undoubtedly, the school run by the Appellant Society imparts education – Imparting education involves public duty and therefore public law element could also be said to be involved – However, the relationship between the respondents herein and the appellant society is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract – If there is a * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2177 Army Welfare Education Society New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Etc. breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element – The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents. [Para 42] Constitution of India – In the instant case, 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: Held: It was held in St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. that merely because a writ petition can be maintained against the private individuals discharging the public duties and/or public functions, the same should not be entertained if the enforcement is sought to be secured under the realm of a private law – It would not be safe to say that the moment the private institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction then every dispute concerning the said private institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction – It largely depends upon the nature of the dispute and the enforcement of the right by an individual against such institution – The right which purely originates from a private law cannot be enforced taking aid of the writ jurisdiction irrespective of the fact that such institution is discharging the public duties and/or public functions – The scope of the mandamus is basically limited to an enforcement of the public duty and, therefore, it is an ardent duty of the court to find out whether the nature of the duty comes within the peripheral of the public duty – There must be a public law element in any action – In the instant case, the relationship between the respondents herein and the appellant society is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract – If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element – The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents. [Paras 38, 39, 40, 42] Doctrine/Principles – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – The respondents contended that they were under a legitimate expectation that their service conditions and salary would not be unilaterally altered by the appellant society to their disadvantage – Thus, as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.