IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI WRIT PETITION NO: 817.^ nr 9niQ AMARAV PRATAPA Between; V Kutumba Rao, S/o Krishna Rao S.V.L. Polytechnic College, Saiteja Batchupet, Machilipatnam Street, Machilipatnam. aged about 51 years, Occ; Attender iin apartment, Nair baddi center. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A P, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher EducalionTE II Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi 2. The Commissioner of Technical Education Towers Jammi Chettu Center, -Vijayawada 3. The All India Council for Technical Education, Building Janpath, New Delhil 10001, Rep by its Deputy Director 4. The State Board of Technical Education and Training, Anne Towers Jammi Chettu Center, Vijayawada Rep by its Secretary. 5. The Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent 6. The Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic College, Chilakalapudi Rep by its Secretary and Corfelpondent , Guntur District Government of A P ANR 7“^ floor, Chanderlok , Machilipatnam ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue Writ or direction may hiore particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.B/Sec/11/2019/1(5 action of the Respondents in iissuing in which the dated 10-06-2019 i Petitioner is terminated without following any law, without issuing any notice nor paying any arrears, salaries etc is illegal arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Attender in the 6^^ Respondent college. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Attender in Respondent college 'by suspending proceedings No B/Sec/11/2019/10 dated 10-06-2019 pending disposal of the above writ petition. gth the lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between: 1. The Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent, K.N.V. Ramanuja Rao, S/o.Somaiah, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. The Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic College, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent, K.N.V. Ramanuja Rao, S/o.Somaiah, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. ...VACATE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.5 & 6 AND V. Kutumba Rao, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ...WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education TE II Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 1. 2. 3. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, ANR Towers, Jammi Chettu Center, Vijayawada 4. The All India Council for Technical Education, Rep. by its Deputy Director, y”" floor, Chanderlok Building Janpath, New Delhi110001 5. The State Board of Technical Education and Training, Rep. by its Secretary, Anne Towers Jamrrii'Chettu Center, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 24-07-2019 in IA.No.1 of 2019 in WP.No.8175 of 2019. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3:SRI P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P.V.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos 6: SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA The Court made the following: OROiR APHC010189772019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 8175/2019 Between: V. Kutumba Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PVSSS RAMA RAO 2.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 3.PS PSURESH KUMAR 4.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA ...RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "... to issue Writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Proceedings No.B/Sec/11/2019/10 dated 10.06.2019 in which the Petitioner is terminated without following any law without issuing any notice nor paying any arrears salaries etc is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same by directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Attender in the 6^'’ Respondent College." 2 2. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, learned Government Perused the material learned counsel for the Petitioner appearing for the and Pleader for Education on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would sub.it that the subject matter Of th,s Writ Petition is squarely covered by the Common Order passed by this Court on 30.12.2024 in WP Nos.17178 of 2018 and batch Similar orders in this Writ Petition 4. Learned Government Pleader appropriate orders. respondents. and requested to pass also. would submit that the Court may pass 5. In that view, the Writ Petition i Order passed by this Court No order as to costs. 6. The Registry is directed Nos. 17178 of 2018 & batch to this order. Pending appiications, if any, shall stand closed. IS disposed of in terms of the Common on 30.12.2024 in WP Nos.17178 of 2018 and batch. 0 annex a copy of the Common Order in WP Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education TE II Department, State of A. P, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of A P ANR Towers Jammi Chettu Center, Vijayawada 3. The Deputy Director, All India Council for Technical Education Chanderlok Building Janpath, New Delhil 10001. 4. The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and Training, Anne Towers Jammi Chettu Center, Vijayawada. 5. The Secretary and Correspondent, Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam. floor. 6. The Secretary and Correspondent, Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic College, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam. 7. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Potturi, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri P.V.S.S.Rama Rao, Advocate[OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Advocate[OPUC] 10. One CC to Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, Advocate[OPUC] 11. Two CCs to GP for Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT 12. Three CD Copies. (Along with a copy of the Common Order in W.P.No.17178 of 2018 & Batch to this Order) ssb HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.8175 of 2019 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS 1 APHC010359852018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT - VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA mupmnoN no. PRADESH [3396] the HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Between: Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic Employees Union Joint Action Committee, AND PrI Secy Education Dept State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) K RAMAKANTH REDDY V V PRABHAKARA RAO 2. 3. APHC010144622019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT WRIT PETlrrnM JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WKIT PETITION No. 641^/7019 the honourable dr JUSTICE Between: Sri Varalakshmi and Others The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petltioner(S): l.RAMANI ANNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) 2.CH NAGA MEHAR BABA ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) AND 2 APHC010177332019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENP^ FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7669/2019 Between: Kalle Krishna Mohan ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.P VSSS RAMA RAO 2.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 3.PS PSURESH KUMAR 4.VV PRABHAKARA RAO 5.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA RESPONDENT(S) APHC010177392019 • IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.7671/2019 Between: K Leela Prasad, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By Its Principal Secretary Higher Education Department and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): P V S S S RAMA RAO GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AP) PSP SURESH KUMAR V V PRABHAKARA RAO SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3 APHC010177342019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7676 nf 2019 Between: B Konda Babu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.PVSSSRAMA RAO 2.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 3.PSPSURESH KUMAR 4.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA ...RESPONDENT(S) APHC010177272019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENPf FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7692/2019 Between: P Vishnu Murthy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.PVSSSRAMA RAO 2.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 3.PSPSURESH KUMAR 4. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA ...RESPONDENT(S) 4 APHC010177292019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7731/2019 Between: B Pitchi Babu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P V S S S RAMA RAO 2.GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AP) 3.PS PSURESH KUMAR 4. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA ...RESPONDENT(S) APHC010177352019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 7749/2019 Between: N V Nagalakshmi, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.P VSSS RAMA RAO 2.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 3.PS PSURESH KUMAR 4. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA ...RESPONDENT(S) 5 APHC010177382019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No, 7952/2019 Between: G V Ram Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P V S S S RAMA RAO 2.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 3.PS PSURESH KUMAR 4.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA ...RESPONDENT(S) APHC010177412019 V ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 8179/2019 Between: T Venkata Satyanarayana, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P V S S S RAMA RAO 2.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) 3.PS PSURESH KUMAR 4. K RAMAKANTH REDDY 5.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA ...RESPONDENT(S) 6 APHC010939092018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3181] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENPr FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CONTEMPT CASE No. 3338/2018 Between: Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic Employees Union Joint Action Committee ...PETITIONER AND Sri Narender Singh Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SURESH KUMAR POTTURI Counsel for the Contemnor: l.PSPSURESH KUMAR ...CONTEMNOR • a' This Court made the following COMMON ORDER: 1. Since the parties and the ]ss^ involved in these Writ Petitions are identical, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. Background of the Petitions 2. The Petitioners, comprising both teaching and non-teaching staff employed at Sri Varalakshmi Polytechnic College, a private unaided institution functioning without state financial support, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Their grievances arise from the persistent failure of the College management to disburse salaries, illegal retrenchment of staff members, and attempts 7 to close the institution without lawful settlement of dues. The Petitioners assert that the non-payment of wages and unilateral employment terminations are in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the principles of natural justice, and the norms laid down by the Ail India Council for Technical Education (AlCTE). Reliefs Sought 3. In W.R No. 17178/2018, the Petitioners seeks a declaration that the inaction on the part of the Respondents with regard to the enquiry initiated vide proceedings dated qI.09.2016 (Letter No. H2/1102/2014) is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional. They also pray for a direction to the authorities to complete the said enquiry and ensure payment of outstanding salaries to the staff of the college. 4. In W.R No.6415/2019, the Petitioners challenge the decision of the official Respondents to permit the O^^Respondent institution to initiate closure proceedings without settling salary dues and other legal benefits to the Petitioners and without takihg action on their representation dated 06.03.2019. 5. W.R Nos.7669, 7952, 8179, 7749, 7731, 7692, 7676, and 7671 of 2019 challenge termination orders dated 10.06.2019. The Retitioners contend that these orders were issued unilaterally, without affording them an opportunity to be heard, and without disbursing arrears of salaries or other benefits. The Retitioners pray for the setting aside of the 8 termination orders and reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. Stand of the Respondents in the counters 6. A common counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.6/College. The 6^^ Respondent contends that it is a private unaided Polytechnic College established in 1982imparting technical education to the students, and it does not receive any financial support from the State Government. Therefore, it does not fall within the definition of "State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. It asserts that the Petitioners have bypassed the remedy of appeal available under Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, and hence, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. It was further submitted that the institution has been under considerable financial strain due to dwindling admissions and reduced fee reimbursement by th# Government. This necessitated the retrenchment of excess staff, for which requisite permission was sought and granted by Respondent N6.2 under Sectioru63. of the Act. The College emphasizes that it has been paying salaries from its own funds without extracting work from retrenched staff, and the continued operation under such financial duress is untenable. 7. Common Counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/State that their role is restricted to the conduct of examinations and granting affiliations through the State Board of Technical Education and Training 9 (SBTET). They assert that they have no statutory authority to fix wages or intervene in employment matters of private unaided institutions. They also claim ignorance of the representations allegedly submitted by the Petitioners. Arguments advanced at the Bar 8. Heard learned counsels appearing on both the sides. Perused the material available on record. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioners that the College, though unaided, performs a public function by imparting technical education, which is a critical component. It is stated that the respondent authorities cannot permit the respondent No.6/College to close the college without paying wages and other benefits to the petitioners as per law. They cite various Government circulars and AlCTE guidelines that mandate the payment of salaries as per prescribed norms. Notably, Merho dated 30.03.2001 issued by the Commissioner of Technical Education directed private Polytechnic colleges to implement AlCTE pay scales (1986) without delay, warning that failure to do so would result in withdrawal of AlCTE approval. It is contended that despite repeated representations and an interim order by this Court in W.P. No.17178/2018, the College failed to 10. pay the salaries, prompting the Petitioners to approach multiple fora including the Lokayukta and the Labour Department. The Petitioners 10 contend that their service conditions are governed by statutory and quasi-statutory directives, and therefore, they are entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. They further argue that their sudden termination, after years of dedicated service, is not only a breach of natural justice but also a calculated attempt to dismantle their rights. The closure proceedings initiated by the College are termed mala fide, intended to defeat the legitimate claims of the employees. It is strenuously argued that the "official respondents cannot allow Respondent No.6 to take steps to close the college without taking any action on their representation dated 06.03.2019 for settlement of all wages and other benefits to the Petitioners as per law before closing the College. 11. Learned counsel would also submit that the very purpose of establishing AlCTE by an Act of Parliament is meant for maintaining norms and standards in the technical education system, the procedure prescribed by AlCTE are applicable to all the Polytechnic Colleges in the State. It has also been emphasisedihat this Court, while granting interim relief in W.P. No. 17178/2018, had directed the Respondents to consider and act on the Petitioners' representations regarding the implementation of AlCTE pay norms. However, ttie non-compliance led to the filing of Contempt Case No.3338/2018. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, AlCTE issued a Show Cause Notice to the College for 11 violating the approval terms and eventually placed the institution under the "No Admission" category for the academic year 2019-20. Learned Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the respondent . authorities were not aware of the representation made by the Petitioner Union to Respondent No.3. It stated that W.P No.6415 of 2019 was filed by the Union representing both teaching and non-teaching staff of the 6‘^ Respondent College, primarily to address the non-payment of wages. It was further submitted that since the College is a private unaided institution, the recruitment and payment of staff salaries are within the exclusive domain of the College management. Consequently, Respondents 1 and 2 do not have the legal authority to intervene rih salary disputes of staff members employed in unaided institutions. Learned Government Pleader emphasized that the principal function of the State Board of Technical Education and Training (SBTET) is limited to conducting examinations and awarding diplomas to students of Polytechnic Colleges. At no point has SBTET prescribed or regulated the wage structure of employees working in such institutions. Nonetheless, a Memo dated 36.03.2001 was issued to all private unaided Polytechnic Colleges urging them to implement AlCTE scales for their teaching staff. The memo also warned that failure to implement 12. was 13. 12 the same could result in a recommendation to AlCTE for withdrawal of academic approval for the year 2001-2002. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th Respondent 14. argued that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable as the Petitioners failed to avail themselves of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act. The College, being affiliated but unaided, receives no financial support from the Government and has been facing significant financial constraints due to the proliferation of Polytechnic Colleges and resultant dilution of student admissions. As a consequence of this dwindling financial viability, it is not in a position to sustain the employment costs of staff. Salaries, to the extent paid, have been met froni" private funds. The College contends that no statutory duty enforceable in writ jurisdiction has been breached and prays for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. Consideration by the Court 15. The fact remains that Respondent No.6/College authorities is under ‘No Admission’ category as it could not get approval of AlCTE for the courses run by it. 16. Petitioners in W.P. Nos.7669, 7671,7676, 7692, 7731, 7749 7952 and 8179 of 2009 are seeking a declaration that the Proceedings dated 10.06.2019, vide which they were terminated are without following 13 . the due process of law. As from the Proceedings of termination dated 10.06.2019 issued by respondent No.6/College per Section 80(1) of A.P. Education Act, 1982, which reads seen it was issued as as under: Section 80: Appeal against orders of imposed on employees of Private Institutions: 1) Any employee who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank may prefer an appeal against the orders of the competent authority within 30 days of the receipt of the order by him. punishment 17. It is clear that no appeal has been preferred by any of the Writ Petitioners before the competent authority questioning the termination Proceedings dated 10.06.2019. it is to be noted that WP No.9842 of 2019 has been filed by the respondent No.6 to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in not disposing of the Petitioner’s representation vide letter dated 24.07.2017 and its reminder on 09.10.2017 as illegal and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the said representation. Ttirs'Court by Order dated 06.04.2021 allowed the said Writ Petition directing respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the letters addressed by the respondent No.6. Pursuant thereto, No.2 accorded permission vide Proceedings No.E3/727/2 008 22.09.2021 for retrenchment of respondent dated one teaching staff and 13 non-teaching staff under Section 83 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982 14 18. Writ Petitioners in W.RNo.6415 of 2019 are such persons, who ' were retrenched with the permission of competent authority and that the said Petitioners prayed for not to initiate any action for closure of the college pending payment of salaries and the petitioners in other Writ Petitions impugned the termination orders dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.6. No doubt, respondent No.3 is the apex body for closure of the college. The petitioners are working as non-teaching staff in the respondent No.6-College, which is a private unaided polytechnic college At this juncture, it becomes imperative to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in St.Mary’s Education Society & Anr V. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & ors\wherein it was 19. concluded thus; 68. We may sum up our final conclusions as under:- (a) An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. 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 toThe 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 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 708 15 collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public, (b) Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public lav/ 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, conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions the employer had the^fstatus of “State” within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element. either the service or (c) It must be consequently held that while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. 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 16 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 non-teaching 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 non-teaching 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 lhat may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non-teaching 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 17 and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty. (e) From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it iIS apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. In. other words, challenged has no public element and writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the action the action was essentially of a private character. (emphasis supplied) 20. While dealing with the similar issue, in A.Mohan and others State of Telangana and others^learned single Judge of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad held at paragraphs 13 and 15 under: as “13. But to say that every Society or Corporation imparting education is discharging a public duty and is amenable to Writ jurisdiction, in my humble opinion, is not correct. Engagement of staff or employees in every private unaided educational Institution cannot be said to be a public function. It is a purely private arrangement made by the said institution to carry out its aims and objectives. Only where a public function breach is alleged, then a Writ Petition would lie and not otherwise. Jf contention of petitioners i accepted, it would open the flood gates and dispute in every private unaided school/college between IS every 2017(6) ALT 6 18 Its management and academic staff would then brought before the High court in judicial review. 15. In the present case, the 4 respondent-Society is not a Deemed University and the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act do not apply to it. Merely because imparting education is a public function, it cannot be said that engagement of employees for the said purpose is also a public function. It is purely a private arrangement made by the Society petitioners and with the so the rights claimed by the petitioners are purely of a private character and relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted to them. A Division Bench ,of the Allahabad High Veer Pal Singh and otijers Vs. Gandhi Trust, Alligarh and others (7) MANU/UP/1418/2017 also took a similar view in regard to maintainability of a Court in Eye Hospital Writ Petition against the respondent in the said case services of its approached the High which runs Eye hospital when employee were terminated and he Court.” an (emphasis supplied) V. St.Paul’s Senior Secondary at paragraphs 23 to 27 21. In Satimbla Sharma and others School and others’ the Hon'ble,,Supreme Court held as under; "*(2011) 13 see 760 19 23. We also do not think that the Court could issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay the salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to teachers of Government schools Government aided schools. This is because the salary and allowances of teachers of a private unaided school is a matter of contract between the school and the teacher and is not within the domain of public law. 24. In Sushmita Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity & Ors. [(2006) 7 SCC 680 ; 2006 SCC (L&S) 1741], the teachers of a recognized private school known as Ballygunge Siksha Sadan in Calcutta filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the authorities of the school to fix the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and to remove all anomalies in the scales of pay as recohnmended by the Third Pay Commission as extended to other Government aided schools and Government-schools and this Court held that in the absence oP provision no such direction can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. or 25. Where a statutory provision casts a duty on a private unaided school to pay the same salary and allowances to its teachers as are being paid teachers of Government aided schools, then a writ of mandamus to the school could be issued to enforce such statutory duty. But in the present case, there 20 was no statutory provision requiring a private unaided school to pay to its teachers the same salary and allowances as were payable to teachers of Government schools and therefore a mandamus could not be issued to pay to the teachers of private recognized unaided schools the same salary and allowances as were payable to Government institutions. 26. In K. Krishnamacharyulu and Others vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Another (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, executive instructions were issued by the Government that the scales of pay of Laboratory Assistants as non-teaching staff of private colleges shall be at par with the governnient employees and this Court held that even though there were no statutory rules, the Laboratory Assistants as non-teaching staff of private college were entitled to the parity of the pay-scales as per the executive instructions of the Government and the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to issue a writ for payment of pay on par with government employees. In the present case, there are no executive instructions issued by the Government requiring private schools to pay the same salary and allowances to their teachers as are being paid to teachers of Government schools or Government aided schools. 21 27. We cannot also issue a mandamus to respondent nos.1 and 2 on the ground that the conditions of provisional affiliation of schools prescribed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations stipulate in clause (5)(b) that the salary and allowances and other benefits of the staff of the affiliated school must be comparable to that prescribed by the State Department of Education because such conditions for provisional affiliation are not statutory provisions or executive instructions, which are enforceable in law. Similarly, we cannot issue a mandamus to give effect to the recommendations of. the report of Education Commission 1964-66 that the scales of pay of school teachers belonging to the same category but working under different managements such as government, local bodies or private managements should be the same, unless the recommendations are incorporated in an executive instruction or a statutory provision. We, therefore, affirm the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.” (emphasis supplied) 22. The maintainability of Writ Petitions in service disputes concerning private unaided institutions has been examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in several landmark judgments referred supra. It is clear that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in service matters involving private unaided institutions unless there exists a public 22 law element or the service conditions are governed by statutory rules. In ' other words, in the absence of the absence of statutory mandates renders service conditions unenforceable through a writ of mandamus. The Hon'ble Courts have cautioned against judicial interference in private employment arrangements unless a statutory breach or public law violation is established. 23.lt is thus a settled principle of law that educational institutions though engaged in public service, remain outside the purview of Article 226 in employment matters, unless there exists a statutory obligation binding upon them. The regulatory circulars and guidelines by AlCTE or the State Government, unless statutorily incorporated or backed by legislation, cannot be enforced through a Writ Petition. Coming to the facts of the present case nothing has been placed on record to show that in a statute imposing obligation oh respondent No.6 to pay salaries as per AlCTE norms. Admittedly, respondent No.6 is not receiving any aid from the Central /State Governments. 24. In view of the authoritative legal position and the facts of the present case, this Court finds no statutory breach or public law element sufficient to sustain the writ petitions. The Petitioners have been unable to demonstrate that their employment terms were governed by enforceable statutory rules or that the actions of the 6*^ Respondent were in discharge of a statutory public duty. Consequently, the grievance^ 23 raised by the Petitioners fall within the realm of private nature and must be pursued before competent forums. 25. With respect to Contempt Case No.3338/2018, the regulatory actions taken by AlCTE, including the issuance of show cause notices and the imposition of the "No Admission" category for non-compliance, constitute substantial compliance with the directions of this Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that no further orders are warranted. 26. On conglomeration of the present facts and circumstances of the cases and in the light of the legal position referred to supra, it is not apposite to issue Writ of mandamus as prayed for. ' 27. In result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies Before appropriate forum for recovery of their salaries according to law. No order as to costs. 28. In view of the above discussion and the disposal of W.P No. 17178 of 2018, the CC No.3338 of 2018-sfands closed as well. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand closed. DRjySTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 30.12.2024 Mj!/*