The Patna High Court has held that a writ petition is maintainable against a minority aided school where an employee alleges violation of statutory provisions governing service conditions. The Court observed that where breach of a statutory provision by a body discharging a public function or public duty is complained of, the dispute does not fall within the realm of a purely private contractual dispute and is amenable to writ jurisdiction.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha was hearing a writ petition filed by an assistant teacher challenging her suspension and subsequent dismissal from a minority aided school in Khagaria.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1987 after her appointment was approved by the competent authority under the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. According to her, she had served the institution without any controversy for decades before she was suspended in April 2024 owing to an inter se dispute between two rival managing committees of the school. During the pendency of the writ petition, she was dismissed from service on January 10, 2026.

The petitioner challenged both the suspension and dismissal orders, contending that they had been passed without obtaining the mandatory approval of the Director, Secondary Education under the 1981 Act, as amended by the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) (Amendment) Act, 2011.

The minority aided school raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the dispute arose out of an ordinary contract of service and, therefore, no writ would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution. The issue before the Court was whether a dismissed employee could maintain a writ petition against a school discharging a public function where the action complained of was also alleged to be in breach of statutory provisions governing service conditions.

Examining the pleadings, the High Court noted that the petitioner had specifically alleged violation of the statutory provisions contained in the 1981 Act. It further observed that the appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff, their service rules and disciplinary control were regulated under the statutory framework, with the Director, Secondary Education exercising regulatory control over minority aided schools.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary's Education Society, the Court held that where breach of a statutory provision by a body discharging a public function is alleged, the petitioner is not required to establish a direct nexus between the impugned action and the public function discharged by that body. The Court observed:

“Where violation of statutory provision by a body discharging 'public function' or 'public duty' is complained of, the same would not come within the realm of private element, requiring direct nexus to be established between action complained of and the discharge of 'public duty' by the body.”

Rejecting the preliminary objection, the Court held that the writ petition was maintainable since the petitioner had challenged the impugned actions on the ground of breach of the statutory provisions contained in the 1981 Act and the 2011 Amendment Act. The Court clarified that while prosecuting the matter on merits, the petitioner would be permitted to assail the suspension and dismissal orders strictly on the ground of the alleged statutory violations, and if she failed to establish such breach, the writ petition may not ultimately succeed.

The matter has been directed to be listed on July 20, 2026.

Case Title: Abha Rani v. State of Bihar

Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12439 of 2025.

Appearance: Mr. Siddhartha Prasad and Mr. Sumit Kumar for the Petitioner. Md. Zeeshan Kalim and Mr. Prasad Verma for the State. Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Ms. Shristi Singh, and Mrs. Aditi Saha for the other Respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order