Writ Maintainable Against Private Tea Garden School Performing Public Function Under Right to Education Act.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Borborooah Tea Estate L.P. School in 2009.

Due to labor union objections in 2011, he was stopped from signing the attendance register until the Assistant Labour Commissioner ordered his reappointment on 09.04.2018.

However, via an impugned order dated 01.06.2018, the School Manager kept his appointment in abeyance without a hearing, citing potential law and order issues raised by tea tribe student associations and labor unions.

During the pendency of the writ, the State of Assam provincialized the school w.e.f. 18.04.2023, but the petitioner’s name was not forwarded for provincialization because his status was "in abeyance".

The respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ, arguing the employer was a private tea company.

The court applied Article 21A and Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the enforcement of fundamental rights and the reach of mandamus.

The court relied on Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, establishing that a writ lies against private bodies discharging "public functions" like education.

The court relied on Andi Mukta Sadguru v. V.R. Rudani, which held that mandamus cannot be denied on technicalities if a positive obligation exists.

Natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, regarding the suspension of employment rights without notice.

The Court rejected the maintainability objection, noting that even if the respondent was a private entity at the time of filing, it performed a public function by imparting primary education under the Right to Education Act, 2009.

Furthermore, since the school was provincialized during the proceedings (April 2023), the maintainability issue became "stale".

On merits, the Court observed that the petitioner was reappointed following a valid order by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, which was never challenged and thus remained legal.

The management's decision to keep the appointment in abeyance based solely on external union pressure—without a show-cause notice or hearing—constituted a gross violation of natural justice. The Court noted the management (Respondent No. 8) actually had no personal objection to his service but acted out of fear of unrest.

The Court quashed the order dated 01.06.2018 and directed the respondent management to allow the petitioner to continue his service, with police protection if union interference occurred. Regarding provincialization, the Court ordered that the petitioner’s name be considered for the benefit as and when future vacancies arise, since he was wrongly excluded at the initial stage due to the illegal abeyance order.