WP/4082/2016 of Ms.Mahalakshmi.K Vs The Indian Public School on 7 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same and having been filed by the same counsel, both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners, by the present writ petitions, have assailed the action of the first respondent in issuing proceedings dated 09.01.2016, whereby their services with the first respondent School were terminated.

3. For ease of reference, the facts as set out in W.P.No.4082 of 2016 are being referred to.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was appointed as Office Administrator in the first respondent School by order dated 12.02.2011 and since then, till the issuance of the impugned order, she has put in continuous service of five years in the first respondent school; and that the first respondent, without issuing any notice, terminated her services, which action, it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents have issued the impugned proceedings alleging that she failed to perform her duties to the expected level, including cash management, due to which there has been a loss of certain amounts; and that the first respondent, without conducting proper enquiry, directly started recovery of the alleged loss from her salary from December 2015 and thereafter, had issued the impugned proceedings terminating her services.

6. The petitioner further contended that though the first respondent is an unaided private school, the same is amenable to writ jurisdiction, as it performs public function and is required to perform such public function and duties in compliance with the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory

Education Act, 2009 and as such, the action of the first respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner can be looked into by this Court.

7. In support of the aforesaid contention, the reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases:

(i) Dr.Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Others – LAWS(SC)-2015-12-33

(ii) Marwari Balika Vidyalaya Vs. Asha Srivastava and others – (2019) 5 MLJ 122 (SC)

(iii) Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of U.P & Ors – (2023) 4 SCC 1

8. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the first respondent is an unaided private school and the relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent is contractual in nature; that the dispute is in relation to the services of the petitioner availed by the first respondent; and that there is no element of public duty or public function involved for the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

9. It is also further contended by the respondents that by the impugned proceedings, the first respondent having terminated the services of the petitioner for causing monetary loss to the first respondent school, and employment of petitioner being contract of service, the action of the first respondent cannot be challenged by way of writ petition.

10. Contending as above, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2887 of 2023 dated 02.09.2026 in the case of The Chairman, HVF English Medium Educational Society, Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, HVF Estate, Avadi, Chennai and another vs. R.Thirunavukarasu and others.

11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

12. Having regard to the specific contention of the respondent, as to the maintainability of writ petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, had called upon the petitioner to satisfy this Court on the aspect of maintainability of the writ petitions, since the first respondent is an unaided private Educational Institution and the dispute being in relation to the services of the petitioner with the first respondent.

13. Though the petitioner contended that since, the first respondent imparts education to children and imparting education being a public duty and thus, the respondent is required to comply with the provisions of the Right of children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (for short “Act, 2009”), it is to be noted that the grievance of the petitioner is not in relation to the enforcement of Act, 2009 , but is in relation to the services of the petitioner with the first respondent school. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that since the first respondent imparts education, it is to be considered as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted, as acceptance of such a contention would result in expansion of definition of 'State' to include a service related dispute between the management of the school and its employees, which are purely contractual in nature. If only the grievance related to the implementation or enforcement of the provisions of the Act, 2009 is concerned, a Writ would lie, but not in relation to any other unconnected issue.

14. Though the petitioner had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.Janet Jeyapaul (supra), Marwari Balika

Vidyalaya (supra) and Kaushal Kishor (Supra), it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision rendered in the case of St.Marys Education Society Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava - (2023) 4 SCC 498 after referring to the decision rendered in the case of Dr.Janet Jeyapaul (supra) and Marwari Balika Vidyalaya (supra) relied on by the petitioner, had held as under: “34. It needs no elaboration to state that a school affiliated to the CBSE which is unaided is not a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India [See : Satimbla Sharma v. St. Pauls Senior Secondary School [(2011) 13 SCC 760]. Nevertheless the school discharges a public duty of imparting education which is a fundamental right of the citizen [See : K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering, (1997) 3 SCC 571]. The school affiliated to the CBSE is therefore an “authority” amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [See : Binny Ltd. and another v. V. Sadasivan and others, (2005) 6 SCC 657]. However, a judicial review of the action challenged by a party can be had by resort to the writ jurisdiction only if there is a public law element and not to enforce a contract of personal service. A contract of personal service includes all matters relating to the service of the employee – confirmation, suspension, transfer, termination, etc. [See : Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. C.P. Sebastian, (2009) 14 SCC 360].

39. This Court considered various of its other decisions to examine the question of public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court observed in Binny Ltd. (supra) as under:− “29.

Thus, it can be seen that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is pre−eminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs.

43. In the case of Committee of Management, Delhi Public School & Anr. v. M.K. Gandhi, reported in (2015) 17 SCC 353, this Court held that no writ is maintainable against a private school as it is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India .

45. In the case of Satimbla Sharma (supra), this Court held that the unaided private minority schools over which the Government has no administrative control because of their autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution are not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. As the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is available against the State, it cannot be claimed against unaided private minority private schools.

56. In Marwari Balika Vidhyalaya (supra), this Court followed Ramesh Ahluwalia (supra) referred to above.

57. We may say without any hesitation that the respondent No. 1 herein cannot press into service the dictum as laid down by this Court in the case of Marwari Balika Vidhyalaya (supra) as the said case is distinguishable. The most important distinguishing feature of the case of Marwari Balika Vidhyalaya (supra) is that in the said case the removal of the teacher from service was subject to the approval of the State Government. The State Government took a specific stance before this Court that its approval was required both for the appointment as well as removal of the teacher. In the case on hand, indisputably the government

or any other agency of the government has no role to play in the termination of the respondent No. 1 herein. 68................

(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 functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service.

(d) Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided the 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. It is immaterial whether “A” or “B” is employed by school to discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract between a school and non−teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non−teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered by the court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty.”

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court once again in the case of Army Welfare Educational Society Vs. Sunilkumar Sharma and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1683 allowing the appeal filed by the appellant therein had held as under: “76. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in taking the view that the original writ application filed by Respondent 1 herein under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The appeal court could be said to have committed an error in taking a contrary view.”

42. In view of the aforesaid, nothing more is required to be discussed in the present appeals. We are of the view that the Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 3138-3141/2021 & 3133-3137/2021 High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents herein holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution”.

16. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2887 of 2023 by its order dated 02.09.2026 held that the second petitioner school therein is a private school and is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and directed the first respondent therein to approach the competent forum for the purpose of securing appropriate relief.

17. A conspectus of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court would show that though imparting education can be considered as public duty; that by itself would not make the first respondent “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, amenable to writ jurisdiction in relation to a service dispute, which is a contractual dispute. Since, the petitioners, by the present writ petitions, have assailed the action of the first respondent in terminating their services, and the first respondent being an unaided private school having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of St.Marys Education Society (supra) and Army Welfare Educational Society (supra) and by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2887 of 2023, this Court is of the considered view that such dispute fall under private realm and cannot be gone into by this Court by entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. Further, this Court in similar circumstances vide order dated 21.09.2026 in the case of T.Sivaraman Vs. General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai and others in W.P.No.2422 of 2017 had held that the petitioner therein was not entitled for being granted any relief in the writ petition and is required to approach the competent forum for the purpose of securing appropriate relief.

19. Since, the issue between the petitioner and the first respondent is purely private in nature and does not involve any public duty or public function, the writ petitions as filed are not maintainable.

20. Accordingly, the present writ petitions fail and are dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to approach the competent forum to seek redressal of their grievances, if so advised. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dh To

The Indian Public School Rep by Mr. Ashok Kumar, Managing Director, 193, Sathy Road, SS Kulam Post, Coimbatore - 641 103.

T.VINOD KUMAR J. dh Pre-delivery order made in WP Nos. 4082 & 4648 of 2016 07-10-2026