LexDILEEP KUMAR PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1146 : 2025 INSC 749 Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10899 of 2013) 21 May 2025 [Abhay S. Oka,* Augustine George Masih and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli, in District Allahabad, is a ‘state or authority’ within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India; whether it would be amenable to writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.12, 226 – Writ petitions filed by the appellants-teachers alleging wrong-doings w.r.t actions taken against them by the respondent-Air Force School – Division Bench of the High Court held that the said School is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Art.12 thus, writ petitions u/Art.226 were not maintainable – Challenge to: Held: Per Abhay S. Oka, J. (for himself and Augustine George Masih, J.) Writ petitions not maintainable – No material to show that the Government or the IAF has any control over the management of the School – No evidence to show that it is actually financed by the IAF, as alleged or that it receives a grant from Public Funds – The School is not governed by any statutory regulations – The Education Code, which applies to the School, does not have any statutory sanction or force – It is issued under the authority of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the IAF Educational and Cultural Society – The Society is a non-profit making welfare association and the School is a non-public fund School – The finance is arranged from the fees collected from students and the air force personnel make a contribution through their welfare fund – There is no control by the Central Govt. or the Ministry of Defence over the running or management of the school – The day- to-day control is with the School Managing Committee – Further, even if pay scales applicable to all IAF schools are determined by the IAF, that by itself will not amount to pervasive control by the * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1147 Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. IAF over the functioning of the schools – Relationship between the appellants and the said school is in the realm of private contract not involving any public law element – View taken by the Division Bench that the School/Society is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Art.12 and thus, writ petition u/Art.226 was not maintainable, upheld [Paras 23, 21, 24] – Per Ahsanuddin Amanulla, J. (Dissent) Writ petitions are maintainable – The School discharges a public function of imparting education – IAF has full and all-pervasive control over the management of the School, inclusive of disciplinary powers as also the power to terminate employment – Control exercised by the IAF, and by extension the Government of India, on the working of the School is not merely regulatory in nature but deep and pervasive – In every sphere of activity relating to the School, the funding consists substantially of funds traceable to the public exchequer – The fact that the land on which the School building stands belongs to and was constructed with the funds of the IAF establishes the financial support enjoyed by the School from the IAF – The Committee/ School would come within the ambit of ‘authority’ and also under ‘other authorities’ as employed in the Art.12 and amenable to writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution – Impugned orders set aside. [Paras 7, 9, 12, 25, 28, 30] Case Law Cited In the judgment of Abhay S. Oka, J. (for himself and Augustine George Masih, J.) Raj Soni v. Air Officer Incharge Administration & Anr. [1990] 2 SCR 412 : (1990) 3 SCC 261; All India Sainik Schools Employees’ Association v. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society, New Delhi & Ors. [1988] Supp. 3 SCR 398 : (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 205 – distinguished. St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. [2022] 8 SCR 301 : (2023) 4 SCC 498; Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Etc., [2024] 7 SCR 2176 : 2024 SCC Online SC 1683 – relied on. Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. [1989] 2 SCR 697 : (1989) 2 SCC 691; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors. [2002] 3 SCR 100 : (2002) 5 SCC 111; Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. [1981] 2 SCR 79 : (1981) 1 SCC 722 – referred to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.