Facts

• The dispute in this case centres around the Air Force School at Bamrauli, Allahabad, Dileep Kumar Pandey, the respondent, was employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.) at this institution.

• The school is managed by the Indian Air Force Education and Cultural Society, a non-profit entity registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

• In 2007, the management issued orders converting Pandey's employment from regular to contractual, leading to a reduction in his salary.

• Dileep Kumar Pandey challenged these orders, contending that the school, being an instrumentality of the State, was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

• The appellants (Union of India and others) argued that the school was not a ‘State’ instrumentality, highlighting the absence of governmental control and funding. They contended that the institution was primarily financed through fees paid by students and contributions from Air Force personnel, without direct government funding or statutory regulation.

• The learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court initially ruled in favour of Pandey, holding that the institution was amenable to writ jurisdiction and quashing the impugned orders. However, upon appeal, the Division Bench overturned this decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of government control or funding to classify the institution as a State under Article 12. Consequently, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable.

Issues

I. Whether the writ petition filed by Dileep Kumar Pandey is maintainable against the Air Force School, Bamrauli, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

II. Whether the Air Force School, Bamrauli, qualifies as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, thereby making it amenable to writ jurisdiction?

III. Whether there is sufficient governmental control and funding over the Air Force School to classify it as an instrumentality of the State?

IV. Whether the rulings in previous cases, such as St. Mary's Education Society and Army Welfare Education Society, are applicable to the present case, considering the differences in government control and funding?

Analysis

The Allahabad High Court's judgment in Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. delves into the critical issue of whether an educational institution managed by a non-governmental society can be considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, thereby making it amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The respondent, Dileep Kumar Pandey, was employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher at the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad, which is managed by the Indian Air Force Education and Cultural Society, a non-profit entity registered under the Societies Registration Act. In 2007, his employment status was altered from regular to contractual, leading to a reduction in his salary, he challenged this asserting that the school, being an instrumentality of the State, was subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 12.

The appellants contended that the school was not a ‘State’ instrumentality, emphasizing the absence of direct governmental control and funding. Therefore, it was argued by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that Air Force Schools are run from Non-Public Funds voluntarily contributed by Indian Air Force personnel, they don’t receive financial support from the Consolidated Fund of India and are not under governmental administrative control.

The Union of India relied on precedents like Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma and St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, which held that private unaided educational institutions, even if they serve public functions like education are not considered "State" under Article 12.

The court examined the key factors determining whether an entity qualifies as a "State" under Article 12: financial support, control, and the nature of the institution's functions. It found that the Air Force School did not receive substantial government funding, was managed by a non-governmental society, and operated independently of direct governmental control.

Consequently, the court concluded that the Air Force School at Bamrauli is not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition filed by Dileep Kumar Pandey was not maintainable, as the institution was not subject to judicial review under Article 226.

Judgement

In this case, the Supreme Court of India, in its order, dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union of India. This decision effectively upheld the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had earlier ruled that the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad, was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

“The verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah (dissenting), and Justice Augustine George Masih in two civil appeals filed by teachers against adverse employment decisions.”

The Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP signifies its agreement with the High Court's reasoning and conclusion, thereby affirming the High Court's judgment.

Therefore, observations made from the Judgement:

• • The Allahabad High Court had ruled that the Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad, was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
• • The Court found that the institution was managed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and did not receive substantial government funding or control.
• • By dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's conclusion that the institution was not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12.

Conclusion

In the case of Dileep Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., The Court ultimately ruled 2:1 in favour of the respondents, holding that the Air Force School in Bamrauli is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, and hence its employees cannot maintain writ petitions under Article 226 for employment-related grievances.

Therefore, this case underscores the necessity of establishing substantial government control or funding to classify an institution as a State instrumentality under Article 12, thereby making it amenable to writ jurisdiction.