Writ Petition is Maintainable Against a Private Unaided Educational Institution Where the Relief Sought Arises From a Statutory Obligation and Has a Public Element

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Writ Petition is...

In siyaram education society v. Chhaya d/o baliram dhave & ors., 2026 insc 871, the hon’ble supreme court held that a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution is maintainable against a private unaided educational institution where the right sought to be enforced flows from a statute and the statute casts a statutory duty upon the institution having a public element.
The court clarified that although a writ petition against a private unaided institution is ordinarily not maintainable where the relief merely seeks enforcement of a contractual right having no public element, the position is different where the obligation sought to be enforced is statutory. The reason is simple: article 226 empowers the high courts to issue writs to any person or authority and such writs are not confined to the state, its instrumentalities or an ‘authority’ falling within article 12. Imparting education by an institution recognized under a statute is akin to performing a public duty; therefore, teaching activity has a direct nexus with such public duty and, where the rights of teaching staff flow from a statute, a writ petition would lie for enforcement of those rights.
The court further held that where there is a statutory mandate requiring a private unaided educational institution to pay its teaching staff salary at a prescribed rate, a writ of mandamus would lie even against such private unaided institution for enforcement of the statutory obligation. In the case before it, the maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) rules, 1981 prescribed scales of pay for teachers employed in private unaided schools, and the governing statute cast a corresponding obligation upon the institutions.
The supreme court also held that non-laying of the amended rules before the legislature does not, by itself, render the rules inoperative, where the statutory provision does not require legislative approval as a condition precedent for their operation. The amended rules therefore operated from the date of their notification unless modified or annulled in accordance with the statutory procedure. Consequently, the supreme court upheld the maintainability of the writ petitions.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

UNITECH Limited & ors. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2021, decided on 07-02-2021

The presence of an arbitration clause does oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked. Read more »

Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Advocacy Experience Requirement for Judicial Service Entry

In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai, mandated a minimum of 3 years' advocacy practice for candidates seeking entry-level judicial posts, restoring the pre-2002 requirement. The Court held that first-hand courtroom experience is crucial for judicial competence and cannot Read more »

State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena, 2020 Scc Online Sc 1177

The court held that for an accused acquitted to join as a police constable, mere acquittal will not be sufficient. The court observed that being acquitted on the absence of any evidence is different from acquittal based on grounds of benefit of doubt. Thereby, in the case of an heinous Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.