Dileep Kumar Pandey [Appellant] Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Respondents]
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10899 OF 2013
(ABHAY S. OKA, J.)
In a significant ruling delivered on May 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of India held that the Air Force School, Bamrauli (Allahabad), does not qualify as a “State” or “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, writ petitions under Article 226 challenging employment decisions by the school are not maintainable. The verdict, delivered by a 2:1 majority, upheld previous decisions of the Allahabad High Court, dismissing appeals filed by teachers who had contested their dismissals from the institution.
The majority judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Augustine George Masih concurring. The bench found that the Air Force Educational and Cultural Society, which manages the school, is a private, non-profit organization not under statutory control. Although some Indian Air Force (IAF) officers serve on its management committees, the Court ruled that this did not amount to deep or pervasive control by the government or the IAF. It emphasized that the school is funded primarily through student fees and welfare contributions from IAF personnel, not public funds from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Justice Oka further noted that any claim regarding financial or administrative control by the IAF lacked sufficient evidence. Even if the school adhered to pay scales suggested by the IAF Directorate of Education or followed a code regulating service conditions, these were not statutory instruments. The school operated independently of statutory rules, and decisions affecting its staff were purely contractual and did not involve public law elements. The Court cited precedents such as St. Mary’s Education Society and Army Welfare Education Society to support its view that even if an institution performs a public function, it is not automatically deemed a “State” under Article 12.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a dissenting opinion, asserting that the Air Force School was indeed amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. He emphasized that the IAF exercised dominant control over the school’s administration, funding, and personnel decisions, including teacher recruitment, promotions, disciplinary actions, and dismissals. He also pointed to historical documents, including a 1985 CBSE affiliation application and Air Force Orders, indicating that the school received financial and administrative support from the IAF and Ministry of Defence.
Justice Amanullah stressed that the IAF’s involvement was not merely regulatory but extensive and operational. He described the school’s activities—especially in education—as fulfilling a public function and thus carrying public accountability. He concluded that teachers, as key agents in delivering public education, could not be treated as private employees and should have access to constitutional remedies.
By a 2:1 majority, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Air Force School does not meet the criteria to be considered a “State” under Article 12. Accordingly, its employment actions are not subject to judicial review under Article 226. This ruling underscores the distinction between public and private entities concerning constitutional remedies, despite overlapping functions in sectors like education.
