Writ jurisdiction cannot resolve private-school employment disputes lacking a public-law element.

The petitioner challenged proceedings dated 23 September 2009 issued by the fourth respondent, which operated Vijayanta Senior Secondary School, and sought protection from retirement before the end of the 2011–2012 academic year.

The Court considered prior decisions holding that a service dispute between a private school and its employee was not amenable to writ adjudication, including a Division Bench decision concerning the same school and the Supreme Court’s decision in Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 INSC 501.

The requested protection period had expired long before the petition was decided.

1. Whether a service dispute between the petitioner and the Society operating the school could be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the requested relief against retirement before the end of the 2011–2012 academic year remained capable of being granted.

Article 226 does not ordinarily permit adjudication of a private contractual employment dispute where the employer is not “State” under Article 12 and the dispute does not involve a public-law element.

In Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 INSC 501, the Supreme Court held that although imparting education involves public duty, a dispute arising from the private employment relationship between a school and its employee does not, for that reason alone, involve public law.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in The Chairman, HVF English Medium Educational Society v. R. Thirunavukarasu, W.A. No. 2887 of 2023, decided 2 September 2026, which held that the school was run by a private management and was not “State” under Article 12.

Applying these authorities, the Court treated the petitioner’s claim as a service dispute arising from the relationship between an employee and a private school, rather than a matter involving a public-law element.

It therefore concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to relief in the writ petition and could seek redress before the competent forum.

Independently, the specific protection sought concerned an academic year that had already ended, rendering that relief infructuous.

The Court expressly left the merits of the challenge to the 23 September 2009 proceedings undecided.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the competent forum for appropriate relief if the cause of action survived; no costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.