Writ Of Mandamus Maintainable Against Private Unaided Schools To Enforce Statutory Pay Scales For Teachers: Supreme Court
The Court also held that non-laying of amended pay rules before state legislature is a "curable defect" that does not affect their validity.
Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private, unaided educational institution to compel it to pay its teaching staff at the scales prescribed by statute, even though such institutions are not "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are ordinarily not amenable to writ jurisdiction for enforcement of private contractual rights. Dismissing appeals by private school managements from Maharashtra, the Court held that where a statute casts a duty on such institutions to pay salaries at particular rates, performance of that duty carries a public element sufficient to attract Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The Court further held that where a rule-laying provision does not require the State Legislature's affirmative approval before a rule takes effect, non-laying of the rule before the legislature is a curable defect that does not affect its validity or operability from the date of notification, unless the legislature subsequently modifies or annuls it.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, in a batch of appeals arising from a common Bombay High Court judgment, observed, “…we are of the considered view that if there is a statutory mandate to a private unaided educational institution to pay the teaching staff salary at a particular rate, a writ of mandamus would lie even against an unaided private educational institution to fulfil its statutory obligation”.
Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari appeared for the appellant and Advocate Bina Madhavan appeared for the respondent.
The respondents were teachers employed in private unaided schools in Maharashtra, governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the Rules framed thereunder in 1981, which prescribe pay scales for teaching and non-teaching staff. When the institutions failed to revise pay in line with amended, higher scales notified in 2016, the teachers approached the Bombay High Court, which directed the institutions to pay salaries per the amended Schedule 'C' scales, quashed departmental letters directing recovery of allegedly excess payments, and restrained any such recovery. The institutions appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that as private unaided bodies they could not be subjected to writ jurisdiction for what was, in substance, enforcement of a private service contract, and that the 2016 amendment was inoperative because it had not been laid before the State Legislature as required under Section 16(4) of the 1977 Act.
Examining its precedents, including St. Mary's Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Others (2023) 4 SCC 498 and Satimbla Sharma & Ors. v. St. Paul's Senior Secondary School & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 760, the Court distinguished between rights flowing from a private service contract, which cannot found a writ petition, and statutory rights, enforcement of which retains a public element even against a private body, holding that imparting education by a recognised institution is "akin to performance of a public duty," and that teaching staff whose pay is fixed by statute may seek mandamus to enforce it.
On the rule-laying question, the Court held that the earlier two-judge decision in Association of Management of Private Colleges v. AICTE, to the extent it suggested otherwise, failed to account for binding larger-Bench authority in Atlas Cycle Industries and the Constitution Bench ruling in K.T. Plantation, and could not be treated as binding precedent on that point. Applying Atlas Cycle and K.T. Plantation, the Court held that since Section 16(4) of the 1977 Act does not make legislative approval a precondition for a rule's operation, the unlaid 2016 amendment took effect from its notification and remained operative, since it had never been modified or annulled by the legislature.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeals, while clarifying, in line with the High Court's own subsequent clarification, that the directions did not extend to teachers no longer in service, leaving open the liberty to raise individual factual disputes over entitlement before the appropriate forum.
Cause Title: Siyaram Education Society v. Chhaya D/o Baliram Dhave & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 871)
Appearances:
Appellant: Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Senior Advocate, Ghatole Shakul Rajesh, AOR, Aparna Kulkarni, Sachin Patil, Satyajeet Kharde, Sunny Jadhav, Arun Longani, Advocates, and Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR.
Respondent: M/s Lawyer S Knit & Co., AOR, Bina Madhavan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, S. Tridev Sagar, Sanya Jain, Ravinder Singh, Advocates; Rahul Joshi, AOR, Aniruddha Deshmukh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocates; and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Shrirang B. Varma, Advocates.