The High Court of Calcutta, while rejecting a petition filed by a teacher for her reinstatement in the post of Assistant Teacher and to set aside the order of dismissal from service dated 25.11.2013 and to pay subsistence allowance, held that the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against a private educational institute would be justified only if a public law element is involved and if it is only a private law remedy, no writ petition would lie.
Brief Facts:
Petitioner was appointed as a part-time teacher on a purely temporary basis. Thereafter, her service was confirmed as a Full-time teacher. Petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect by a letter dated July 16, 2012 alleging that she was involved in commission of gross misconduct for which a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against her. A show cause notice was issued proposing to dismiss the petitioner from the post of a teacher. The Managing Committee dismissed the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the school conducted the inquiry behind the back of the writ petitioner by not serving the notices of inquiry upon the petitioner. He further contended that the entire inquiry was vitiated. He contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse as it misconstrued a letter written by the petitioner to mitigate the situation to be a letter of apology.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the respondent school is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, and is managed by its own Managing Committee. There was/is no government control in the management of the society. The school does not receive any aid or grant from the Government. The service condition of the petitioner was governed by the school’s own service rules which are absolutely non-statutory in nature and, therefore, the master-servant relationship between the school and the writ petitioner is not enforceable before the writ Court.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the respondent school is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. It is also not in dispute that the school does not receive any aid or grant from the Government. The constitution of the Managing Committee is required to be approved by the Department of Education.
The court observed that the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against a private educational institute would be justified only if a public law element is involved and if it is only a private law remedy, no writ petition would lie. The Court said that the State only has regulatory power to safeguard the interest of the employees serving at the listed schools and merely because the State has some regulatory powers, that by itself cannot be a ground to entertain and decide a writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, a teaching staff, challenging an order of her dismissal.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, dismissing the application, held that the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent school which is a private unaided institution.
Case Title: Rita Ghoshdastidar vs. St. Joseph & Mary’s School & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Case No.: WPA 19024 of 2014
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Soumya Mazumder
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
