In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court clarified the boundaries of writ jurisdiction concerning unaided private schools, emphasizing that while these institutions perform a public duty by imparting education, their private actions remain shielded from such oversight.
The decision arose from a case involving the Presentation Convent Senior Secondary School, which contested an earlier single-judge directive to reinstate a teacher dismissed over alleged misconduct. A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Mohd Yousuf Wani overturned the reinstatement order, underscoring that disputes rooted in private contracts are beyond the purview of writ jurisdiction.
“Unaided private educational institutions do perform the public duty of education and are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, not every dispute involving such institutions automatically becomes subject to writ jurisdiction,” the Court observed.
The judges explained that invoking writ remedies, such as a mandamus, requires proving a direct link between the contested action and the institution’s public duty. A purely private matter, such as employment contracts, does not meet this threshold.
The school argued that the teacher’s termination lacked a public element warranting judicial intervention. The teacher’s legal representation countered that teaching inherently constituted a public duty. The Court ultimately sided with the school, asserting that government recognition or board affiliation alone does not elevate a private institution’s internal affairs into the public law domain.
This ruling delineates the nuanced line between private and public functions within educational institutions, affirming that writ jurisdiction remains a tool to ensure accountability in public actions but not a mechanism to mediate private disputes.
