Air Force School Not A 'State' Under Article 12; Teachers' Writ Petitions Against Dismissals Not Maintainable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against Allahabad High Court judgments holding that the Air Force School in Bamrauli, Allahabad, is not a “State” or “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution, and writ petitions against it by its employees are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanatullah(dissenting) and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the judgment in two civil appeals filed by teachers challenging adverse employment decisions. “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. 24. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any fault with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. The relationship between the appellants and the said school is in the realm of private contract. Assuming that there was a breach of private contract, the same does not involve any public law element”, the Court held.While Justice Oka authored the majority opinion dismissing the appeals, Justice Amanullah dissented, holding that the school was amenable to writ jurisdiction and the Indian Air Force (IAF) has deep and pervasive control on it.The dispute involved two separate cases. In both the cases, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appellants' writ petitions holding that the school does not fall into the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Thus, they filed the present appeals.The appellants argued that the Air Force Schools were established by the IAF and managed by the Indian Air Force Educational and Cultural Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. They pointed to the affiliation application to the CBSE which claimed the school was fully financed by the IAF, construction of school buildings using public funds, and issuance of pay scales by the Air Force Directorate of Education. They said that IAF has functional and administrative control over the Society and the school.They contended that this amounted to deep and pervasive control by the IAF over the school's administration, satisfying the tests laid down in precedent for determining whether a body is a “State” under Article 12. Reliance was placed on rulings including Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, and Andi Mukta Sadguru v. VR Rudani.Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati contended that Air Force Schools are governed by Non-Public Funds contributed voluntarily by IAF personnel. No funds are allocated from the Consolidated Fund of India, nor does the government exercise administrative control. The school functions independently of statutory regulation, and its staff are employed contractually under private arrangements.The Union of India relied on Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma and St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, where private unaided educational institutions were held not to be “State” under Article 12 even when performing public functions such as imparting education.Court's VerdictMajority Opinion by Justice Abhay S. Oka with Justice Augustine George Masih concurring:Justice Oka highlighted that the Air Force Educational and Cultural Society, which manages the school, is a non-profit welfare association and the school itself is a non-public fund school. Its finances are derived primarily from student fees collected under various heads, and contributions made by Air Force personnel through their welfare funds.The Court found no evidence of control by either the Central Government or the Ministry of Defence over the school's functioning or administration. Though some IAF officers serve ex-officio on its governing committees, the school is not governed by statutory rules, the Court noted. The School Managing Committee, not the IAF or a statutory body, exercised day-to-day control over the school.The Court noted that the 1985 CBSE affiliation application claimed the school was “fully financed by the IAF.” However, the Court noted that there was no evidence that the school actually received funds from the IAF. Even if the school was built with public funds, there was no evidence of recurring government grants or statutory control.The Court noted that while the school may follow pay scales prescribed by the IAF Directorate of Education, it did not amount to pervasive control by the IAF over the functioning of the schools. Further, the Education Code followed by the school was not a statutory instrument. Therefore, even if the Code regulated staff appointments, pay, and service conditions, it was not legally binding in the way statutory rules are.Citing St. Mary's Education Society and Army Welfare Education Society, the Court concluded that even if the school performs public functions, that alone is not sufficient to bring it within the scope of Article 12. The...

Air Force School Not A 'State' Under Article 12; Teachers' Writ Petitions Against Dismissals Not Maintainable: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags