Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the termination of employment by the private unaided school authorities, based on allegations of sexual harassment, without due process, a single-judge bench comprising of Aniruddha Roy,* J., held that the writ petition is not maintainable as it involves an employment dispute lacking a public law element. The Court held that while the school performs public duties in imparting education, the dispute between the petitioner and the school is contractual and falls under the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008 and directed the petitioner to seek redressal under Section 13 of the Act.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner was initially employed as an Office Assistant at W.W.A. Cossipore English School on 07-09-1992, and subsequently transitioned to the role of a Computer Teacher on 08-04-1996, following a successful application and selection process. On 29-10-2018, the petitioner’s employment was terminated by the school authorities based on allegations of sexual harassment. The petitioner contended that the termination violated procedural regulations outlined by the school education department of the State, as enumerated in a notification dated 24-11-1993. Aggrieved by the impugned termination, the petitioner preferred a writ petition challenging the termination and seeking reinstatement, release of arrear salary and benefits, transfer of records to the court, interim relief, costs of litigation, and any other appropriate orders.
Moot Point
-
Whether the writ petition maintainable considering the nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the school authorities?
-
Whether the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008?
-
Whether the petitioner maintain this writ petition as the statutory forum, the commission, not yet established?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008, provides for the adjudication of school disputes, including disciplinary matters involving teachers at unaided schools and since the commission has not yet been established, the writ petition is maintainable as there is no alternative statutory remedy available. The petitioner also invoked the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and West Bengal Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012, to support his argument regarding the jurisdiction of the commission. The petitioner asserted that teachers of educational institutions discharge public duties and functions, and the termination constitutes a disciplinary matter under public law, entitling the petitioner to seek redress through a writ petition.
The respondents argued that the dispute falls outside the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008, as the jurisdiction of Commission is limited to disputes arising under specified State acts, which do not include the present dispute. It was contended that the relationship between the petitioner and the school is based on a private employment contract, making the writ petition not maintainable. The respondents relied on St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1091 and K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage, (2015) 4 SCC 670, to support their argument that writs cannot be used to enforce private law rights.
Court’s Assessment
The Court noted that the petitioner who was an employee at a private unaided school, had his employment terminated under a private contract. The Court analysed the provisions of the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008 and noted that the Act applies to specified state acts and conferred jurisdiction on a commission to adjudicate school disputes, including disciplinary matters. The Court noted that Section 12 of the Act limited the commission’s jurisdiction to specified state acts, while Section 13 did not impose such restrictions. The Court found that the disputes raised by the petitioner fall under Section 13 of the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008, which do not limit adjudication to specified state acts and therefore, the petitioner’s claims were amenable to the commission’s jurisdiction.
The Court noted that since the dispute raised by the petitioner did not fall within the specified State Acts and the commission is not yet established, the petitioner had to satisfy the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra). The Court considered various precedents, including Supreme Court judgment in St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra), to determine the maintainability of the writ petition and held that the writ jurisdiction can only be invoked if there is a public law element involved and not to enforce a contract of personal service. The Court asserted that the petitioner’s dispute did not involve a public law element and was primarily a matter of private contractual employment.
The Court held that while the school performs public duties in imparting education, but the petitioner’s employment dispute lacks a public law element and therefore, the petitioner’s remedy lies under Section 13 of the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008, but the petitioner cannot approach the Constitutional Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, in line with St. Mary’s Education Society (Supra), without costs, allowing the petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies for their grievance. The Court directed the petitioner to seek redressal under Section 13 of the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission Act, 2008. The Court, however, clarified that the dismissal was solely based on the issue of maintainability and did not address the merits of the petitioner’s case.
[Kausik Majumdar v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1839, order dated 23-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Aniruddha Roy
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Shamim Ahammed, Mr. Arka Maiti, Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharjee, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Ujjal Ray, (through virtual mode) Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Mr. Sk. Abdur Rahim, Counsel for the Respondent 2 to 4
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ld. AGP, Mr. K.M. Hossain, Counsel for the Respondent 1
Buy Constitution of India HERE
