IAF Doesn’t Have Pervasive Control Over Functioning Of IAF Schools Even If It Determines Pay Scales: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court with 2:1 majority, allowed Civil Appeals in which the issue was whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli, in District Allahabad, is a “State or Authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court with 2:1 majority has held that the Indian Air Force (IAF) does not have pervasive control over the functioning of IAF schools even if it determines the pay scales applicable to the said schools.
The Court held thus in a batch of two Civil Appeals in which the issue involved was whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli, in District Allahabad, is a “State or Authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “As per the Memorandum of Association of the Society, the members of the Society are IAF officers who hold their posts ex-officio. The Command Schools Managing Committees do not have control over the day to-day running of Air Force Schools. The day-to-day control is with the School Managing Committee. Even if the school building is constructed out of Public funds, there is no record to show that it receives a grant from Public Funds. There is nothing in the Education Code to show that the IAF has control over the said school. The audited accounts of the school for the period from 2019 20 to 2023-24 indicate that no public funds or grants were received by the school. Even if pay scales applicable to all IAF schools are determined by the IAF, that by itself will not amount to pervasive control by the IAF over the functioning of the schools.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said that the land on which the school building stands belongs to and has been constructed utilising the funds of the IAF which is enough to establish the financial support enjoyed by the school from the IAF.
“The corpus and assets of the IAF are traceable to the Central Government, being public in nature”, he added.
Senior Advocate Sanjay R Hegde represented the Appellants while ASGs K.M. Nataraj, Aishwarya Bhati, and Senior Advocate Anant Vijay Palli represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
In the lead case, as per the Appellant, pursuant to a public advertisement and selection process conducted by the IAF officers in July 2005, he was appointed as a trained graduate teacher in the subject of physical education of the IAF school. He was appointed on probation and the probation period was extended from to time. In June 2007, an Order was served upon the Appellant stating that he was rendered surplus as the said school decided to appoint a more qualified teacher. An option was given to the Appellant either to remain employed in the said school on contractual basis on a fixed salary or to remain employed under the existing arrangement under which his service would come to an end on July 3, 2007.
Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, praying for a declaration that the Appellant is a confirmed teacher in the said school. The said Petition was allowed by the Single Judge holding that the said school was a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution. Thereafter, an Appeal was preferred before the Division Bench especially on behalf of the school management, which was allowed. The Division Bench held that the said school is not a State. This was challenged before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “We have perused the application made to CBSE for affiliation. The application was made on 22nd August 1985. It was in the name of the Air Force Primary School. Although it is stated that the school was fully f inanced by the IAF, there is no evidence to show that the school was actually financed by the IAF. The Education Code, which applies to Air Force Schools, is not a statutory code that has the force of law. It is issued under the authority of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the IAF Educational and Cultural Society. It provides that all Air Force Schools are administered under the Society.”
The Court said that it is not shown how the IAF headquarters has any control over the management of the said school and although some funds may have originated from the Army Welfare Society, it cannot be said that the State or the IAF has any control, let alone all-pervasive control, over the school.
“Moreover, the said Society is not governed by any statutory rules. … In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench recorded the undisputed position that the appellants are employees of the said school, which is not governed by any statutory regulations. The Education Code, which applies to the said school, does not have any statutory sanction or force. A finding of fact was recorded that there is no material to show that the Government or the IAF has any control over the management of the school. It is not possible for us to take a contrary view”, it added.
The Court held that the relationship between the Appellants and the said school is in the realm of private contract and assuming that there was a breach of private contract, the same does not involve any public law element.
“In the circumstances, we are unable to find any fault with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. … Therefore, there is no merit in the appeals”, it concluded.
Justice Amanullah’s Dissenting Opinion
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah remarked, “I have had the benefit of perusing the erudite view in the judgment penned by my senior, learned Brother Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka. With great reverence for his scholarly opinion, I am unable to concur therewith, for reasons that follow.”
He was of the view that the Committee/School would come within the ambit of ‘authority’ as employed in the said Article and further, the Committee/School would also be covered under ‘other authorities’ in the context of Article 12 of the Constitution.
“As far as the Code which applies to the Air Force Schools not being statutory in nature is concerned, the said factor alone cannot have any determinative effect on the question of law before us. Notably, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the IAFE&CS is a senior-ranking Air Marshal of the IAF. All the Air Force Schools register under aegis of the IAFE&CS and as per the Memorandum of Association of the IAFE&CS, members thereof are IAF officers”, he added.
He also said that many such schools have been established within the campus of the IAF bases/establishments itself and this, incrementally would also exhibit that the school enjoys privileges and facilities on account of its linkage to and control by the IAF.
“We cannot be oblivious to or unmindful of the purpose behind establishment of the schools – to take care of the need of the IAF personnel who may be posted at far-away places not having educational facilities as also taking into account safety and security. We find that many such schools have been established within the campus of the IAF bases/establishments itself”, he observed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals.
Cause Title- Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 749)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Sanjay R Hegde, AOR Aarthi Rajan, Advocates Anand Singh, S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Abhilasha Shrawat, Kartik Malhotra, Anindit Mandal, Darsh Bansal, and Shreya Mansi James.
Respondents: ASGs K.M. Nataraj, Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocate Anant Vijay Palli, AORs Neelam Sharma, Deepak Goel, Advocates Rajat Nair, Kanu Agarwal, Sairica S Raju, Ashutosh Ghade, Shreeyash U Lalit, Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Shreya Jain, Manisha Chava, Anupam Raina, Nikhil Palli, Alka Goyal, Urvashi Sharma, and Archana Preeti Gupta.
