School staff remain employees of the society, notwithstanding facilities provided by a public-sector undertaking.

The appellant challenged the Writ Court’s order dated 18 March 2026 dismissing W.P. No. 7323 of 2016 as not maintainable.

The dispute concerned an agreement between respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for establishing a school on a campus to educate employees’ children.

The appellant relied on NMDC’s provision of a building and accommodation for the Society’s employees as evidence of NMDC’s involvement in discharging public duties.

The agreement’s clause 5.25 provided that the school’s Principal, teachers, and staff would be employees of the Society alone, governed by its rules, and would have no connection with the Enterprise.

1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the school or its management in light of the alleged public function of providing education and NMDC’s provision of facilities.

2. Whether the Writ Court’s dismissal of the petition as not maintainable warranted appellate interference.

Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 provided the basis for the appeal.

Under Article 226, as explained in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava, (2020) 14 SCC 449, relying on Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, the expression “any person or authority” is not confined to statutory bodies; a writ may lie against a body performing a public duty, and that duty need not be imposed by statute.

The judgment also states that a grant or provision of facilities by a statutory authority or public-sector undertaking does not, by itself, permit a writ against the management committee of a private school.

The Court noted that clause 5.25 placed the school staff’s employment relationship exclusively with the Society, rather than NMDC.

Although it cited authority recognising that writ jurisdiction may extend to private educational institutions performing public functions, it concluded that NMDC’s provision of a building or other facilities did not make a writ available against the school’s management committee.

The judgment does not expressly reconcile that conclusion with the broad public-duty principle it recites.