ST. MARY’S EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. versus RAJENDRA PRASAD BHARGAVA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 24-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
301
ST. MARY’S EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.
v.
RAJENDRA PRASAD BHARGAVA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5789 of 2022)
AUGUST 24, 2022
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – CBSE Affiliation Bye laws
1, 2, 23(xi), 25(xii), 26, 27, 44, 46, 49 and 51 – Writ petition –
Maintainability of – Appellant no.1-Society runs a private unaided
minority educational institution – The respondent no.1 was an
employee of appellant – The appellant issued a show cause notice-
cum-suspension order to the respondent for various alleged
misconduct in service – After the departmental enquiry, the
respondent’s services were terminated – The respondent challenged
the termination order before the Disciplinary Committee constituted
by the appellant but the appeal was dismissed – The respondent
then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking to set aside the Disciplinary Committee’s order and
the termination order – The appellants raised a preliminary objection
on the maintainability of the writ petition – Single Judge of High
Court rejected the writ application as not being maintainable – On
appeal, the Division bench of High Court set aside the judgment of
the Single Judge and held writ petition maintainable – On appeal,
held: The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be exercised by the High Court even if the
body against which an action is sought is not a state or an authority
or an instrumentality of the state, but there must be a public element
in the action complained of – Further held, an application u/Art.
226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or body
discharging public duties or functions –However, for an educational
institution to be subject to judicial review, the act complained of
must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty –
Furthermore, employees of such institutions cannot invoke Article
226 in matters relating to service if they are not governed by statutory
provisions – A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be invoked
for individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without a public
law element - In the case at hand, the action challenged had no
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 301
301
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
public element, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the
action was essentially of a private character – Writ application
rejected on the ground of maintainability – Order passed by Division
Bench of High court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD:1. Final conclusions are as under:
(a) An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties
or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory
or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person
must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public
involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the
discharge of public function, it must be established that the body
or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective
benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so
must be accepted by the public.
(b) Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is
imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct
nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public
law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke
the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a
prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts
without having any public element as its integral part cannot be
rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever
Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the
statutory provisions or the employer had the status of “State”
within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found
that the action complained of has public law element.
(c) It must be consequently held that while a body may be
discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus
its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a
Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to
invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in
respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed
or controlled by the statutory provisions. An educational
institution may perform myriad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.