57.
(SC) 09-07-2024
A. Constitution of India, Article 12, 13, 226 -- Army Welfare Education Society / Private Educational Institution – Service dispute – Maintainability of writ –
-- Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it?
-- Whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Held, High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition holding that the appellant society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution -- School run by the Appellant Society imparts education -- Relationship is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract -- If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract, the same does not touch any public law element -- The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents.
(Para 42, 46)
B. Doctrine of legitimate expectation -- Features :
-- First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation;
-- Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings;
-- Thirdly, expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be treated as a legitimate expectation;
-- Fourthly, legitimate expectation operates in relation to both substantive and procedural matters;
-- Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis.
-- Sixthly, a plea of legitimate expectation based on past practice can only be taken by someone who has dealings, or negotiations with a public authority. It cannot be invoked by a total stranger to the authority merely on the ground that the authority has a duty to act fairly generally.
The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case.
(Para 48, 49)
C. Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Arbitrariness in State action -- It is clear that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action -- It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field.
(Para 49)
D. Doctrine of legitimate expectation – Schol run by Society – Applicability upon -- Even if the function being performed by a private educational institution in imparting education may be considered as a public function, the relationship between the administration of such an institution and its employees remains a contractual one, falling within the ambit of private law -- No statutory obligation on the appellant society which requires that the salaries and allowances of the respondents are to be kept at par with what is payable to teachers of Government institutions -- Appellant society, for the purposes of its relationship with its employees, cannot be regarded as a public or Government authority -- Doctrine of legitimate expectation will have no applicability to the facts of the case.
(Para 50-52)
