HAROLD JAMES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Law always is in a process of evolution. Laws, which were considered to be of much significance at the relevant time, by the efflux of time, became ineffective due to modernization, development and changing needs of the public. Earlier, the Courts used to issue directions that have all the necessary ingredients of being coined as an Instrumentality or Agency of the State but of late the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain requirements to achieve ends of justice, which earlier could not be done under the prerogative writ of Mandamus. The words 'any person or authority' used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. Needless to mention that the courts will lose its efficacy if it cannot possibly respond to the need of the society.

(2.) In State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial; AIR 1970 SC 2079 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the right of the State to regulate education, educational standards and allied matters cannot be denied. The minority institutions cannot be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions, or under the guise of exclusive right of managements, to decline to follow the general pattern. While the management must be left to them, they may be compelled to keep in step with others.

(3.) In Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association vs. Union of India and others; AIR 1987 SC 311 the Supreme Court while considering the question regarding scales of pay and other conditions of service of teachers and other employees of the Frank Anthony Public School, New Delhi compared unfavourably with those of their counterparts of the Delhi Administration Schools, said that the management of a minority Educational Institution cannot be permitted under the guise of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution, to oppress or exploit its employees any more than any other private employee. In Francis John vs. Director of Education; AIR 1990 SC 423, the petitioner, who was an Head Master in a school and whose services were terminated, challenged the order of the High Court, which has held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the view of the High Court and took a contrary view holding that the writ petition in such matter is maintainable. Paragraph 5 of the report reads as under:-