The High Court considered two writ petitions filed over the payment of salary and service conditions of a lecturer employed by a minority institution. The petitioner's claim for enforcement of salary payment under public law was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that disputes over contractual service in private minority institutions fall under private law unless statutory provisions apply. The matter was remanded to the Joint Director of Higher Education for fresh inquiry into the factual claims.

1. The maintainability of petitions against minority institutions was addressed.
2. Judicial review is permissible to scrutinize factual findings and procedural adherence.
3. Disputes in private minority institutions are governed by contractual terms, not public law.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Article 30 of the Constitution of India
• Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work

1. Parties and Petitions

• Para 1-3:
  The petitions involved Syed Waseem Syed Sahab (petitioner in W.P. No. 9962/2017) seeking enforcement of salary claims and Jagdamba Vidya Prasarak Mandal (petitioner in W.P. No. 6391/2020) challenging the order passed by the Joint Director, Higher Education.

2. Background and Appointment

• Para 4-6:
  Syed Waseem was appointed as a lecturer in Urdu on a permanent non-grant basis by a minority institution. Despite approvals, the petitioner alleged unpaid salary since 2010.

3. Dispute and Judicial Intervention

• Para 7-8:
  The petitioner approached the High Court earlier, leading to an inquiry by the Joint Director, who found no conclusive evidence of payment but directed the management to clear dues.

4. Arguments of the Parties

• Para 9-13:
  The petitioner claimed unpaid salary and sought affiliation for the post of Urdu lecturer. The management contested, citing payments made and declining student strength.

5. Legal Issues Considered

• Para 14-19:
  The court analyzed the applicability of Article 226 against private minority institutions. The lack of statutory provisions governing the petitioner's service barred public law remedies.

6. Procedural and Factual Deficiencies

• Para 20-23:
  The Joint Director's inquiry lacked adherence to earlier High Court directions, necessitating a remand for a fresh inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Scope of Article 226: Writs are maintainable against private minority institutions only when a public law element is established.
2. Service Conditions: Employment disputes in private institutions remain within the domain of contract law unless statutory obligations are invoked.
3. Procedural Adherence: Authorities must follow procedural directives, especially when directed by judicial orders.

Subjects:

Employment disputes and judicial intervention in private minority institutions under constitutional and contractual frameworks.

Minority Institutions, Contractual Employment, Article 226, Judicial Review, Salary Disputes