Guwahati, Jan 12 : The Gauhati High Court has observed that grievances or disputes pertaining to the internal affairs of unaided non-government educational institutions “are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution”.
The court further observed that writ petitions would not be maintainable against unaided private institutions, as an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner.
Justice Michael Zothankhuma, making the observation on Friday, dismissed two writ petitions, challenging the termination of services, against an unaided private educational institution as not maintainable.
The services of the petitioners, who are assistant professors at the Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management and Technology, Hatkhowapara, which is an unaided private institution, were terminated without serving a month’s notice. A month’s salary was paid to them instead.
However, according to the appointment letters, the respondent institution was supposed to have issued a one month’s notice to the petitioners.
The petitioners subsequently filed writ petitions (under Article 226 of the Constitution) before the Gauhati High Court, challenging 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.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the advocate argued 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 that a writ petition would not lie against an unaided private institution, which was further 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 the writ jurisdiction.
Referring to the full Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court in the “Abdul Gofur Mondal v. State of Assam (2015)” case, which was instrumental in establishing educational tribunals in Assam, the counsel submitted that the petitioners should have approached such a tribunal.
The full Bench had 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 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