High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-02-15Writ petition dismissed.

Renju Raveendran v. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 26398 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date: 2023-02-15
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Renju Raveendran

Respondents

Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram
The Managing Trustee, Vidyadhiraja Educational and Charitable Trust
The Manager, Vidyadhiraja Vidhyapeedom Central School
The Principal, Vidyadhira Central School
The Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of General Education

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.T.C.Govinda Swamy
• Sri.S.K.Balachandran
• Smt.Kala T.Gopi
• Sri.V.K.Nandakumaran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.Nirmal S., SC, CBSE
• R.Rajasekharan Pillai

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Renju Raveendran, a trained graduate teacher at Vidyadhiraja Central School, is under suspension while a disciplinary proceeding is conducted by the CBSE‑affiliated institution. The petitioner challenges Exts. P4 (suspension), P9 (show‑cause), P10 (charge memo), P15 (CBSE order) and P16 (enquiry notice), contending that the disciplinary measures violate the CBSE affiliation bye‑laws and applicable law. In reliefs, she seeks quashing of the challenged steps, reinstatement in service with immediate restoration of salary and benefits, and action against respondents for alleged breaches of the bye‑laws, the RTE Act, and related legal pronouncements. The petition cites Sommy Kunjappan v. CBSE to urge that writ jurisdiction ordinarily cannot police private contracts or discipline in unaided schools; however, it also invokes the authority that CBSE bye‑laws have statutory force, citing Jigya Yadav and Sindhu S., to press the public‑law dimension. The respondents counter that the writ petition cannot lie for private employment matters and that Ext. P15 recorded no violations of bye‑laws, directing the disciplinary process to be completed within 30 days. The court agrees there is no public‑law element justifying interference and, applying the Gazette of bye‑laws as interpreted, dismisses the petition for reliefs 1–3 as unfounded, and finds no grounds to permit quashing Exts. P4, P9, P10, P15 or P16.

Provisions of Law Cited

CBSE Affiliation Bye-LawsRTE Act, 2009Constitution of India, Article 266

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Writ jurisdiction is available only where there is a public law element; writ cannot enforce private contracts or private rights in unaided schools; disciplinary actions by management of unaided schools fall within private rights; CBSE bye-laws have statutory force; public law element required for interference.
Disciplinary proceedings in unaided schools fall under private rights; writ jurisdiction limited to cases involving public duty or public element.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that the suspension and the ongoing disciplinary proceedings at a CBSE‑affiliated school were vitiated by non‑compliance with the CBSE affiliation bye‑laws and applicable law. Exts. P4, P9, P10, P15 and P16 are attacked as illegal or procedurally defective, and the petitioner seeks quashing of those orders and notices, reinstatement in service with back wages and monetary benefits, and action against the respondents for alleged violations of the bye‑laws and RTE Act. The petitioner relies on Sommy Kunjappan to emphasize that writ relief is inappropriate for private employment disputes unless a public element exists, while also invoking Jigya Yadav and Sindhu S to argue that CBSE bye‑laws have statutory force and may be enforceable by writ when public law elements arise. The applicant argues that the affiliation bye‑laws create a public obligation and seeks protection of constitutional rights, while urging that the disciplinary process should be halted until compliance with the bye‑laws is confirmed. The relief sought includes reinstatement and restoration of all monetary and service benefits without break.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend writ jurisdiction cannot quash private contracts or personal service, as per Sommy Kunjappan and related authorities. They argue that the petition concerns private rights in an unaided school, where writs do not lie unless a public law element exists; Ext. P15 shows no violations of bye‑laws and directs the disciplinary process to proceed, so the challenge to proceedings lacks legal basis. They rely on the settled principle that writs cannot control private contracts; Jigya Yadav’s assertion of statutory force for bye‑laws is not argued to override this fundamental rule. They highlight that there is no public duty to enforce and that Ext. P15 confirms no breach, thus urging dismissal of the petition.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sommy Kunjappan v. C.B.S.E.	2019 (1) KLT 864	Positive	Supports the proposition that writ relief is not available for private disciplinary actions in unaided schools absent a public law element.
Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E	2021 (3) KLT 711 (SC)	Positive	Affiliation bye-laws have statutory force, supporting writ relief to enforce bye-laws with public law effect.
Sindhu S. v. Raja Ravi Varma Central School	ILR 2022 (3) Kerala 996	Mentioned Only	Cited as a contrary view that writ could be maintained to enforce bye-laws; not followed as controlling in this case.
St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava	2022 (6) KHC SN 15	Mentioned Only	Used to illustrate the public element test; not binding in this context.
Toji Joseph and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.	ILR 2009 (3) Kerala 54	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of earlier discussion on writ jurisdiction over private rights.
Sophiammma V.V. v. Council for Indian School Certificate Examination and Ors.	2008 (2) KLT 589	Mentioned Only	Mentioned in context of public element and writ jurisdiction.

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 Renju Raveendran v. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others 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 SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 26TH MAGHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 26398 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** RENJU RAVEENDRAN TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (TGT),VIDYADHIRAJA, VIDHYAPEEDOM CENTRAL SCHOOL, PONNARAMTHOTTAM, MAVELIKKARA POST, ALAPPUZHA690101(UNDER SUSPENSION)NOW RESIDING AT VAIKUNTAM, BHARANIKKAVU P.O, MAVELIKKARA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690503. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN SMT.KALA T.GOPI SRI.V.K.NANDAKUMARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|THE REGIONAL OFFICER,| |---|---| ||CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, L.I.C| ||DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS, BLOCK B, 2ND FLOOR, PATTOM,| ||THRIUVANATHAPURAM-695004.| |2|THE MANAGING TRUSTEE,| ||VIDYADHIRAJA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,| ||PONNARAMTHOTTAM, MAVELIKKARA POST, ALAPPUZHA-690101| |3|THE MANAGER,| ||VIDYADHIRAJA VIDHYAPEEDOM CENTRAL SCHOOL, PONNARAMTHOTTAM,| ||MAVELIKKARA POST, ALAPPUZHA-690101| |4|THE PRINCIPAL,| ||VIDYADHIRAJA VIDHYAPEEDOM CENTRAL SCHOOL, PONNARAMTHOTTAM,| ||MAVELIKKARA POST, ALAPPUZHA-690101| ## **WP(C) NO. 26398 OF 2018 -2-** 5 THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION(CBSE),SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2 COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR,DELHI-110092. 6 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCTION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695001. BY ADVS. SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P.(C) No.26398 of 2018** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15[th] day of February, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner is a teacher in the 4[th] respondent school. The school is affiliated with the 5[th] respondent Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The petitioner is faced with a disciplinary proceeding and is under suspension. 2. Challenging the order of suspension, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.5344 of 2018. The petitioner alleged that the suspension was in violation of the CBSE affiliation bye-laws. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P12 judgment dated 04.07.2018, directing the CBSE to consider the issue after hearing the parties. 3. Pursuant thereto, CBSE passed Ext.P15 order repelling the petitioner's contention and directing the disciplinary proceedings to be completed within 30 days ## **W. P.(C) No.26398 of 2018** ## -: 2 :- therefrom. It is thereupon that the petitioner has approached this Court. ## 4. Heard learned counsel on either side. 5. The writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- _“i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exts.P4, P9, P10, P15 and P16 proceedings._ _ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith._ _iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to restore all monetary and service benefits of the petitioner without break and interruption of any kind._ _iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1, 5 and 6 to initiate steps against respondents 2 to 4 for violating the binding provisions of the Affiliations Bye Laws of the CBSE, RTE Act, 2009 and other relevant provisions of law and statutes and pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India._ _v) Issue such other and further orders or directions this Honourable Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”_ **W. P.(C) No.26398 of 2018** -: 3 :- 6. In relief No.1, the petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P4, P9, P10, P15 and P16 proceedings. Ext.P4 is the suspension order, Ext.P9 the show-cause notice, Ext.P10 the memorandum of charges, Ext.P15 the order passed by the CBSE, and Ext.P16 is the notice by the Enquiry Officer, proposing further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P15 notice. All the above documents relate to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Relief Nos.2 and 3, as noticed above, also relate to her personal rights based on the challenge against the disciplinary proceedings. 7. In _**Sommy Kunjappan v. C.B.S.E. 2019 (1) KLT 864,**_ a Division Bench formulated the following question for determination, _“Whether the disciplinary action initiated by the management against the erring teachers in a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education can be called in question by them in proceedings under Article 266 of the Constitution of India?”_ The Court held that such disciplinary proceedings are out of bounds for the writ court. It was held that a ## **W. P.(C) No.26398 of 2018** -: 4 :- writ will not lie unless there is a public law element. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to enforce a contract of personal service. It was further held that, contract of personal service includes all matters relating to the service of the employee including suspension, transfer, termination etc. Judicial review cannot be exercised to enforce private rights/contracts. Disciplinary proceedings by the management of an unaided school falls within the realm of private rights in respect of which the writ jurisdiction is not liable to be invoked. Whether the reliefs sought amounts to enforcement of public duty or involves a public element, is the determining factor for invocation of the writ jurisdiction. _(See_ _**St. Mary’s Education Society and Another v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others 2022 (6) KHC SN 15, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan v. Raju B 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 10799** ,_ _**Toji Joseph and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., ILR 2009 (3) Kerala 54, Sophiammma V.V. v. Council for Indian School Certificate Examination and Ors. 2008 (2) KLT 589** )._ Therefore, in ## **W. P.(C) No.26398 of 2018** -: 5 :- the instant case there could be no doubt that a writ petition would not lie in respect of reliefs 1 to 3 sought by the petitioner. 8. As regards relief No.4, the petitioner alleges violation of the affiliation bye-laws of the CBSE. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E 2021 (3) KLT 711 (SC),**_ the CBSE affiliation bye-laws 2018 have statutory force. In _**Sindhu S. v. Raja Ravi Varma Central School**_ **,** _**ILR 2022 (3) Kerala 996**_ , a Division Bench of this Court has held that a writ could be maintained against the CBSE to enforce the provisions of the affiliation bye-laws which have statutory force. In the case at hand, after consideration of the affiliation bye-laws, the C.B.S.E has noticed that there are no violations and accordingly directed the disciplinary proceedings to be completed. Relevant portion of Ext.P15 order reads thus:- **W. P.(C) No.26398 of 2018** **==> picture [34 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _“With regard to violation of other provisions of Affiliation bye-laws, undersigned do not find any violations which come in way for conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings. As per the statement of the school, school has Trust and Management Committee as defined in Affiliation bye-laws of the Board.”_ 9. In the light of the above, there is no scope for interference with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner or against Ext.P15 order passed by the C.B.S.E. Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26398/2018** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26.4.2010 FOR| |---|---| ||RS.3 LAKHS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 28.10.2017| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.11.2017 TO EXT| ||P2 MEMO DATED 28.10.2017| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED| ||20.11.2017| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.3.2012| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CBSE| ||AFFILIATION BYE LAWS.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6.12.2017| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE APPELLATE| ||AUTHORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 27.12.2017| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED| ||8.3.2018| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 2.5.2018| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P11|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.5.2018 TO EXT| ||P10 CHARGE MEMO.| |EXHIBIT P12|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.2018 IN| ||WRIT PETITION NO 5344/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE| ||COURT| |EXHIBIT P13|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.7.2018| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P14|TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 23.7.2018| ||SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| APPENDIX- **WP(C) 26398/2018** -2- EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.7.2017 (SIC.2018) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. -----