Shakeela And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Others

  

 
    
  
 

   

 





 

 ! 

 "





  !
!

 "#$#%&

$ %&

'

()*+

 $ 

#)*+

,-. !

' ()  /

 !





01


%     

certiorari

( 3 '

4  ## 

5*

 7

!8

,.2

!8

,  2

 + # /



2

2

 5*

97   :

8) 

 !



;+

 +

 # 





  

 & 

,2 2 3 /*



%

&    

8 ) $



 2

,2 2 3

/<3 /

   1)2  # 



   !  / # 

5#

7/

2

+

 &

&

+ 2! ( 2)



82

 =2

82

 +

 

+ #



! 8+ #  .

  

   #

  

 

5#

7  # +     .  #     /

   >

 /



5/>/7 21#

 /% 9 

)

,#

,9 #

,

,.)

#

8 ?

 ); 

2



  3 =2



,) 1

  

3#

3+ *3  + # ) 

, 



  3) 2 8 

,1  

#



#

 +



 +

8

3 

 &  4





!&

5#

7

 

3 !

; .1 1 !

3!

 =2

, )22 #

, 

/)2 .8

 1<+ 

&

  !



3!

 &



'

,) 22 #

,;)

!

##

/>/ / #

!

3+

*) ## ! 

,  

 4

8)



5#

7

3

) )2 !

+



 8

=2

)

#

!

+ 2 2

+ 2


?

% # & 9 Per contra) 

  

 

   (  :

!&

2

  

,.

*

9

 

2

 

  3  

 ##   # 

3+

 8  +

3 '

&

+

  6#

/ 

#!



  +    ! (

8    +

 

)  2

)  

  

83 

  3 



 #

 /

 

 #    

   

5#

7 !

 3!

 

 

)2

 3

)

+3 

8  = +3





3

   )

#

&!

3# &

   & 

 ! 8



 

/

5#

72  !8

 ( :





+

#   

8!

3 !8 



*) & #

     !8 





+ 2*




% 

!8

2  

  * 2@3  =A!

#








      

#

2






 



 +

 !8#

&3#!

 ) 

#



#  

3 !8&







 62 

 #!

 8% 

!



 8& 3+

!8



)

#

 

   

 



#!



#

3 3@ @:

2

232 #  "68. We may sum up our final conclusions as under: (a)   

     

      !    

"#         #  



 

   The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public.

(b)      # 

"     

      

"





$"

  "

  % &  



 It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the status of "State" within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element.

(c) It must be consequently held that &     #   "  #



   "





      #"  "#     

  &  #   !   ! $ "

 &

 ' &  (!   # 

 

 "  &

  

 #          An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, 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.

  (d) Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided the school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the term, an employee of a nonteaching staff engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration or internal management is only an agency created by it. It is immaterial whether "A" or "B" is employed by school to discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract between a school and nonteaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of nonteaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered by the court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty.

(e) From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it is apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. )&

$

  

 "   &    " "

   #  

       &



  "

&#   7  ! (

8) 2@3  =A!

#




 "* 


+&,  
 - "
"

  .

/
!!0 123



&

#!





 

#  

3 #!



2

*) #

3 

+ 2 

2  




% #

3 3@ @:

2

232 

 4/  In view of the aforesaid, nothing more is required to be discussed in the present appeals. We are of the view that the High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents herein holding that the appellant society is a "State" within Article 12 of the Constitution. 5 #

$   #


 "

 

)"



  



  

  &   "  

 

  #      #      (&$      #&

   

 

 "

  "

    

 )  #   $ "

  

 & " The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents."

&#   7  /



2



)

3

 & !8 

/ 3 

  

#

!8 :



 %!

8)  !

 



   (* ) )2

)

&

 #

 



   & !8  %&#



)  &3

&3 #!

 !

 

+   






% #  

3 &

!

2 

 

  6  2    

   #!

   8  *  #

  

5#

7 

 

 

+        



2 !

3+

!8 #  + !8 

+





1

8) 



8& !8 :

)

& # 8

&  #  ,

8) 8&   & !8 



!8 8



2





    8  

    

   &   >+

&   /) 

5#

7     #    #

    

      !8 



  

8+

3   

 

8 

+

  

3 



#

+ 1 %+ 2  !+

&

  & 











%  ;  3  &

 

57)    8)  

  

#  (!

) 



 

#

30

  0, 

#

 0,