Dr. Manjeet Kaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 October, 2024

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Manjeet Kaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 October, 2024

2. Shri Dubey appearing on caveat on behalf of respondent No. 3 is raising an objection with regard to maintainability of this petition saying that the respondent No. 4 is a society registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (For brevity 'Adhiniyam, 1973'). He submits that the society functions for imparting education; it is running schools up to 12th standard and five colleges imparting higher education. He submits that respondent No. 4 is a private, minority, unaided, non-grant and self financed society, which is being run by its own funds and fees collected from the students.

3. Shri Dubey has submitted in the present case the petitioner is challenging the charge sheet issued to her but that cause cannot be raised by her by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same is not maintainable because the respondent No. 4 is a society registered under the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1973. He has relied upon the judgments reported i n 2019 (16) SCC 303 parties being Ramkrishna Mission and another Vs. Kago Kunya and others and also on an order passed by this Court in the case o f Sone Lal Burman vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others - WP No. Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 11/21/2024 10:56:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:56928 2 WP-31018-2024 16943/2016 decided by order dated 7 th March, 2024. He has also relied upon a decision of Division Bench passed in WA No. 1004/2018-Guru Ramdas Khalsa Institute of Science and Technology Pharmacy, Jabalpur & another vs. Akhilesh Tripathi & others decided on 05.02.2020. The Division Bench in the said case has decided the issue whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the termination by an employee of a private educational institution is maintainable or not. The Division Bench in the said case has observed that against the private educational institution, writ is not maintainable. The said order of the Division Bench has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 8828-8829/2020 - Akhilesh Tripathi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and dismissed SLP by order dated 25.11.2021.

4. In rebuttal to the objection raised by Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent authority is an autonomous college and comes within the definition of 'College' as defined in Statute No. 28 of the College Code in which definition of 'Teacher' is also provided. The petitioner being a Teacher is working in the respondent-college which is as per Statue No. 28 is an educational institution. He has submitted that even non-grant colleges also fall within the said definition. According to him, the Supreme Court in case of St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498 has observed that even against the private institution power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised, if any public element in the action challenged is involved. In the said case, the Supreme Court has further observed that even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the term, an employee of a non-teaching staff engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration or internal management is only an agency created by it.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the respondent No. 4 is an unaided private educational institution, but it is performing a public duty, therefore, the Teachers of the said institution can raise their grievance by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore this petition is maintainable.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 11/21/2024 10:56:38 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:56928 3 WP-31018-2024 6 . I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7 . As far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, it is undisputed that the said institution is a registered society registered under the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1973 and is running colleges, imparting education in various streams, but the challenge made by the petitioner to the charge sheet issued to her cannot be said to be a public cause and no public element is involved therein. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Army Welfare Education Society vs. Sunil Kumar reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1683 has considered the similar issue and laid down as to what is a public duty and where the cause raised by the petitioner can be considered to be a public duty and the petition can be entertained by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of or not. The Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"50. We have discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs that even if the function being performed by a private educational institution in imparting education may be considered as a public function, the relationship between the administration of such an institution and its employees remains a contractual one, falling within the ambit of private law.

51. Nothing has been placed on record by the respondents to show that any express or implied promise was made by the appellant regarding keeping their salary and service conditions intact. There have been no past negotiations or dealings between the respondents and the appellant society as the dispute arose as soon as the appellant took over the administration of the school. Moreover, there is no statutory obligation on the appellant society which requires that the salaries and allowances of the respondents are to be kept at par with what is payable to teachers of Government institutions. Lastly, the appellant society, for the purposes of its relationship with its employees, cannot be regarded as a public or Government authority."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 11/21/2024 10:56:38 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:56928 4 WP-31018-2024 And thereafter, in the said case, the Supreme Court has drawn conclusion in para-53, which is as under:-

"53. In the result, the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside."

8 . In the case of Army Welfare Education Society (supra) , the Supreme Court has also considered the earlier decisions rendered in the cases of St. Mary's Education Society (supra) , K.Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering reported in (1997) 3 SCC 571 , Sushmita Basu v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity reported in (2006) 7 SCC 680 and S.K. Varshne vs. Our Lady of Fatima Higher Secondary School reported in (2023) 4 SCC 539, on which the petitioner has placed reliance, and finally drawn the conclusion and observed that merely performing the duty of a Teacher in an unaided private educational institution cannot be considered to be a discharge of public duty and no public element is involved in the same and as such the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

9. In view of the aforesaid and taking note of the order passed by the High Court and also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases referred hereinabove on which the respondent No. 4 has placed reliance, especially the view taken by the Supreme Court recently in the case of Army Welfare Education Society (supra) , I am of the considered opinion that this petition filed by the petitioner assailing the charge sheet being a Teacher of respondent No. 4 institution is not maintainable because the institution is a society registered under the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1973 and running schools and colleges imparting education in various streams. Consequently, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RAGHVENDRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 11/21/2024 10:56:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:56928 5 WP-31018-2024 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Signing time: 11/21/2024 10:56:38 AM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court