Case Title: St. Mary's Educational institute v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava
The Supreme Court while answering the question that whether or not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private unaided minority institution held that a writ petition raising service disputes against private educational institutions is not maintainable if they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions.
The Hon’ble Bench observed that, “The actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service.”
The Court further observed that, “Even if a body performing public duty is amenable to the writ jurisdiction, all its decisions are not subject to judicial review. Only those decisions which have public element therein can be judicially reviewed under the writ jurisdiction. If the action challenged does not have the public element, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the action could be said to be essentially of a private character.”
It further observed that CBSE is only a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not a statutory body. The Court also referred to Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshimi Narain, to clarify the difference between a body created by the statute and a body governed in accordance with a statute has been explained by this Court. The relevant portion of Vaish Degree College (supra) read:-
“It is, therefore, clear that there is a well-marked distinction between a body which is created by the statute and a body which after having come into existence is governed in accordance with the provisions of the statute. In other words, the position seems to be that the institution concerned must owe its very existence to a statute which would be the fountainhead of its powers. The question in such cases to be asked is, if there is no statute would the institution have any legal existence. If the answer is in the negative, then undoubtedly it is a statutory body, but if the institution has a separate existence of its own without any reference to the statute concerned but is merely governed by the statutory provisions it cannot be said to be a statutory body.”