GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has observed that disputes pertaining to the internal affairs of unaided non-government educational institutions were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A mandamus, however, can be issued against such an institution only if it performs public function and the grievance relates to the discharge of public function, the Court clarified, in an observation.
Making the observation, Justice Michael Zothankhuma dismissed two writ petitions, challenging the termination of services, against an unaided private educational institution as not maintainable.
The services of the petitioners, assistant professors at the Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology, Hatkhowapara, which is an unaided private institution, were terminated without serving notice, but a month’s salary instead.
However, a clause in their appointment letters mentions that before terminating services the respondent institution is supposed to give one month’s notice to the petitioners.
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were filed before the Gauhati High Court assailing the termination letters.
Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.
The advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued, after referring to previous judgments in the apex court, that the writ petitions were maintainable as the respondent institution performed public function by imparting education.
On other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent institution argued, while referring to previous judgments, that a writ petition would not lie against an unaided private institution, which was asserted by the advocate appearing for the state.
Moreover, it was submitted that the termination of service of faculty members was not a public function. The institution being a non statutory body, a contract of personal service cannot be enforced against it in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Referring to the full Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Abdul Gofur Mondal v. State of Assam (2015), which was instrumental in establishing educational tribunals in Assam, the counsel submitted that the petitioners should have approached the said tribunal.
The full Bench then held that the statement of objects and reasons of the Assam Non-Government Education Institutions (Regulation and Management) Act, 2006 showed that it had become necessary to enact a law to regulate the unplanned and mushroom growth of non-government educational institutions.
Accordingly, the full Bench issued a writ of mandamus to the state government to establish educational tribunals in the districts of Assam, to adjudicate disputes relating to the teaching and non-teaching staff of non-government educational institutions.
“A reading of the judgment of the full Bench in Abdul Gofur Mondal (Supra) and the subsequent notifications dated 03.12.2015 and 02.06.2016, issued by the government of Assam, shows that in so far as the matter pertains to the internal affairs of an unaided non-government educational institution, a writ petition would not be maintainable against the unaided private institution, as an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners,” the court observed.
“As the respondent, Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology, is an unaided non-government educational institution, the petitioners’ grievance with regard to termination of their services may be adjudicated before educational tribunals. The petitioners are accordingly given the liberty to approach the appropriate forum,” it said
The court thereafter dismissed the writ petitions, observing that they were not maintainable.