The petitioner's appointment as 'Drawing Teacher' in the respondents school with effect from 17.7.2000 was not approved by the educational authority. The petitioner had challenged the rejection of approval before this court in OP.No.5231/2002. Eventhough the writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge, the judgment was reversed in appeal filed by the Government, in WA No.475/2002. In Ext.P2 judgment the Division Bench of this court held that, there was no established vacancy existed for appointment of the petitioner and the rejection of approval was upheld. It was observed that there is no obligation on the part of the Government to pay salary to the petitioner for the period he had worked. However, it was clarified that it is open to the petitioner to proceed against the Manager for recovery of the salary for the period he had worked. It is stated that, after disposal of the writ appeal the petitioner made a request before the first respondent seeking payment of salary for the period he WP(C).2669 /2008 2 had worked, as per Ext. P3. Since the request made in Ext.P3 was not considered, this writ petition is filed.
2. Preliminary issue which is to be considered is that, whether this writ petition is maintainable against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of this court in Laiju vs. Deputy Director of Education (2000 (3) KLT 63). Referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held therein that any person or authority performing a public duty and owing a positive obligation of the affected party is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is held that aided educational institutions are discharging public functions by way of imparting education to students and the employment in such institutions is not devoid of any public interest. Therefore the Manager of an aided school can be said to be an authority performing public duty when making appointments to the school.
3. In the case at hand, the appointment made by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner was ultimately held as illegal and invalid. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to WP(C).2669 /2008 3 claim any right based on the contention that the appointment made was in discharge of a public duty. The claim for payment of salary now made by the petitioner is purely a private right which is sought to be established. Even- though the respondents can be considered as an institution discharging public functions while imparting education, any private right cannot be enforced in a proceedings under Article 226. This is especially because for resolution of the dispute appreciation of facts based on evidence and materials will become absolutely necessary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, approaching civil court for redressal of the grievances will be time consuming, because of the long delay in settling matters and because of the chances of appeal and revision etc. It is also contended that resorting to such method will incur heavy cost. Therefore discretionary jurisdiction of this court should be extended for redressal of his grievance, is the contention. In this regard he had placed reliance on the decision of this court in Padmavathi Amma vs. Special Tahsildar (2010 (4) KLT WP(C).2669 /2008 4
721). But I do not find any dictum laid in the said decision. It is only held that, in any given circumstance this court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in order to redress grievance of a party who has not resorted to remedy under the common law.
5. On the basis of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that relief sought for in this writ petition will not come within the purview of the writ jurisdiction vested on this court which can be decided under Article 226. Needless to observe say that it is left open to the parties to enforce right against respondents through appropriate forums.
6. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, subject to rights reserved in favour of the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy.