High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-01-30Dismissed

G. Sajeevan v. Corporate Manager, Lutheran High Schools, Lutheran Church, Kanjiramkulam, Thiruvananthapuram; Head Master, Lutheran High School, South Aryad, Alappuzha

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 2669 of 2008 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Judgment Date: 2013-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy, and the government is not obliged to pay salary for the period worked; relief is not available under Article 226.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

G.Sajeevan, aged 37 years, s/o Rajappan, Sarovaram, Iron Bridge P.O. Mukkavakkal Road, Alappuzha

Respondents

Corporate Manager, Lutheran High Schools, Lutheran Church, Kanjiramkulam Thiruvananthapuram 695524
Head Master, Lutheran High School, South Aryad, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Vasu Devam
• Sri P. P. Soman Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri D. Kishore
• Sri V. A. Muhammed & Sri K. E. Hamza

Case Synopsis & Summary

G. Sajeevan, who was appointed as a Drawing Teacher in Lutheran High School from 17 July 2000, challenged the rejection of approval of his appointment by the educational authority. The petition initially bearing OP No. 5231/2002 saw relief granted by the Single Judge, but that order was reversed on appeal in WA No. 475/2002. Ext. P2 records a Division Bench view that there was no established vacancy and that the rejection of approval was upheld, with a note that the Government is under no obligation to pay salary for the period of work; however, the petitioner could seek salary through other remedies. The petitioner subsequently moved the present writ petition seeking payment of salary for the period worked, arguing that the school’s status and his appointment created public interests and duties. The court, however, examined whether the writ petition is maintainable against the respondents, referencing Laiju v. Deputy Director of Education to discuss the public-function/ public-duty framework of aided educational institutions. It concluded that the appointment was illegal and that the salary claim is a private right, not enforceable under Article 226, as factual resolution would require detailed evidence. The court held that the relief sought falls outside writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, while keeping open the option for the petitioner to pursue an appropriate remedy.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Public function doctrine (aided educational institutions discharge public functions)
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for redressal of grievances involving public duties
Private rights cannot be enforced through Article 226 where the underlying right is private
Discretionary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 should not be invoked when common law remedies exist

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the rejection of approval was illegal and that he be remunerated for the period he worked; he argues that the appointment was part of a public function and seeks relief under writ jurisdiction to secure salary. He emphasizes the difficulties and costs of civil remedies and relies on prior judicial observations regarding writ jurisdiction and public-interest elements in aided educational institutions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the writ petition cannot be maintained against them since the appointment was illegal; the claim for salary arises from a private right and cannot be enforced through Article 226; relief under the writ jurisdiction is not warranted; resolution requires assessment of facts and evidence; the matter should be pursued through appropriate remedies.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Laiju v. Deputy Director of Education	2000 (3) KLT 63	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss the public-function concept, but the court states there is no direct dictum from this decision relevant to the present case.
Padmavathi Amma v. Special Tahsildar	2010 (4) KLT 721	Mentioned Only	Cited regarding discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226; the judge notes no binding dictum for extending writ jurisdiction in the circumstances.
W.A.No.986/2005	dated 19.9.2007	Positive	Ext. P2 judgment held no established vacancy and upheld rejection of approval; the present judgment aligns with this reasoning.
W.A.No.475/2002	—	Mentioned Only	Writ petition allowed by Single Judge but reversed on appeal; referenced for the status of prior relief.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against G. Sajeevan v. Corporate Manager, Lutheran High Schools, Lutheran Church, Kanjiramkulam, Thiruvananthapuram; Head Master, Lutheran High School, South Aryad, Alappuzha and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/10TH MAGHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 2669 of 2008 (P)** **----------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **G.SAJEEVAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.RAJAPPAN, SAROVARAM, IRON BRIDGE P.O. MUKKAVALAKKAL ROAD, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.VASUDEVAN SRI.P.P.SOMAN NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOLS, LUTHERAN CHURCH, KANJIRAMKULAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695524.** ## **2. THE HEAD MASTER, LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, SOUTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED & SRI.K.E.HAMZA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 2669 of 2008 (P) :: ::** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 17.7.2000.** **EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.986/2005 DATED 19.9.2007.** **EXT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.2007.** **EXT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B35592/2007 DATED 06.11.2007.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//true copy//** ## **P.S. To Judge** **sk/-** ## C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. --------------------------------WP(C).NO. 2669 of 2008 --------------------------------Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner's appointment as 'Drawing Teacher' in the respondents school with effect from 17.7.2000 was not approved by the educational authority. The petitioner had challenged the rejection of approval before this court in OP.No.5231/2002. Eventhough the writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge, the judgment was reversed in appeal filed by the Government, in WA No.475/2002. In Ext.P2 judgment the Division Bench of this court held that, there was no established vacancy existed for appointment of the petitioner and the rejection of approval was upheld. It was observed that there is no obligation on the part of the Government to pay salary to the petitioner for the period he had worked. However, it was clarified that it is open to the petitioner to proceed against the Manager for recovery of the salary for the period he had worked. It is stated that, after disposal of the writ appeal the petitioner made a request before the first respondent seeking payment of salary for the period he WP(C).2669 /2008 2 had worked, as per Ext. P3. Since the request made in Ext.P3 was not considered, this writ petition is filed. 2. Preliminary issue which is to be considered is that, whether this writ petition is maintainable against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of this court in **Laiju vs. Deputy Director of Education (2000 (3) KLT 63).** Referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held therein that any person or authority performing a public duty and owing a positive obligation of the affected party is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is held that aided educational institutions are discharging public functions by way of imparting education to students and the employment in such institutions is not devoid of any public interest. Therefore the Manager of an aided school can be said to be an authority performing public duty when making appointments to the school. 3. In the case at hand, the appointment made by the 1[st] respondent in favour of the petitioner was ultimately held as illegal and invalid. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to WP(C).2669 /2008 3 claim any right based on the contention that the appointment made was in discharge of a public duty. The claim for payment of salary now made by the petitioner is purely a private right which is sought to be established. Even- though the respondents can be considered as an institution discharging public functions while imparting education, any private right cannot be enforced in a proceedings under Article 226. This is especially because for resolution of the dispute appreciation of facts based on evidence and materials will become absolutely necessary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, approaching civil court for redressal of the grievances will be time consuming, because of the long delay in settling matters and because of the chances of appeal and revision etc. It is also contended that resorting to such method will incur heavy cost. Therefore discretionary jurisdiction of this court should be extended for redressal of his grievance, is the contention. In this regard he had placed reliance on the decision of this court in **Padmavathi Amma vs. Special Tahsildar (2010 (4) KLT** WP(C).2669 /2008 4 **721).** But I do not find any dictum laid in the said decision. It is only held that, in any given circumstance this court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in order to redress grievance of a party who has not resorted to remedy under the common law. 5. On the basis of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that relief sought for in this writ petition will not come within the purview of the writ jurisdiction vested on this court which can be decided under Article 226. Needless to observe say that it is left open to the parties to enforce right against respondents through appropriate forums. 6. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, subject to rights reserved in favour of the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).2669 /2008 5 WP(C).2669 /2008 6