Facts
The petitioner challenged proceedings dated 23 September 2009 issued by the fourth respondent, the society running Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, and sought to prevent his retirement before the end of the 2011–2012 academic year.
Source reference: p.1–2The Court considered the objection that the school was privately managed and that the petitioner’s service dispute did not involve a public duty or public function.
Source reference: p.3By the time the petition was decided, the requested period of protection had long expired.
Source reference: p.5Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s service dispute with the privately managed school was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p.3–42. Whether the petitioner could obtain the requested protection against retirement until the end of the 2011–2012 academic year, which had already passed.
Source reference: p.5Law Applied
Under Article 226, a private school’s performance of the public function of imparting education does not, by itself, make an employment dispute between the school and its employee a matter involving a public-law element.
Source reference: p.4In Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 INSC 501, the Supreme Court held that a dispute arising from the private contractual relationship between a school and its employee does not concern a public duty discharged by the school in connection with that employment.
Source reference: p.4The Court also referred to the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 2887 of 2023, which treated Vijayanta Senior Secondary School as a private management not falling within Article 12, and to the order in W.P. No. 2422 of 2017 applying the same principle to a school-service dispute.
Source reference: p.3–4Reasoning
Applying these authorities, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s service dispute arose from his relationship with a privately managed school and was not adjudicable in a writ petition merely because the school imparted education.
Source reference: p.3–4Separately, the specific prospective relief sought had become infructuous because the 2011–2012 academic year had long ended.
Source reference: p.5The Court did not determine the merits of the challenge to the 2009 proceedings.
Source reference: p.5Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving the challenge to the proceedings dated 23 September 2009 open on its merits and granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent forum for appropriate relief if a cause of action survived.
No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
V.RADHAKRISHNANvsCENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
