Case: RAMAKRISHNA MISSION Vs. KAGO KUNYA

3. The first respondent joined the Ramakrishna Mission Hospital at Itanagar on 15 March 1980 as a General Duty Worker. He was regularised with effect from 1 August 1980 by a letter dated 23 July 1980. On 31 March 1982, the first respondent was promoted to the substantive post of Nursing Aid. He was made permanent on 13 April 1984. Subsequently on 31 December 2005, he was promoted as an Office Assistant with effect from 1 October 20054. The conditions of service of the employees of the hospital are governed by the Service Rules. Among them is Rule 18 which provides for superannuation in the following terms:(i) A permanent employee/staff shall normally retire from the ser- vices of the Hospital after 35 years of service or an attaining the age of 60 (sixty) years. Provided further, the Management in the service of the Hospital may extend the service of an employee/staff even af- ter 35 years of service or he attains the age of 60 (sixty) years, whichever is earlier, subject to his medical fitness, in slots of 1 (one) years at a time(ii) However, an employee/staff may be retired earlier if in the event of suffering from physical or mental incapacity in the discharge of his duties provided the physical or mental incapacity of the employee/staff is established by a Medical Board duly constituted by the ManagementOn 31 January 2015, the hospital informed the first respondent that he would be retiring from service on 24 March 2015 in accordance with the Service Rules, consequent upon the completion of thirty-five years of service5. The first respondent instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gauhati High Court to challenge the above communication and sought a writ of mandamus to allow him to continue in service until he completes thirty-five years of service, counting the appointment from 31 March 1982 when he was substantively ap- pointed as a Nursing Aid6. The appellants raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that neither Ramakrishna Mission nor its hospital is State within the meaning of Article 12 and they are not amenable, in any event, to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India7. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. While rejecting the objections of the appellants to the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the appellants fall within the description of State within the meaning of Article 12. A direction was issued, on merits, to the hospital to treat the date of appointment of the first respondent as 31 March 1982 and not 15 March 19808. In consequence, the first respondent was effectively granted an extension of ser- vice for two years beyond the date of superannuation as computed on the basis of the initial date of joining service. The first respondent has been paid his terminal dues on the basis of the date of retirement as computed by the hospital9. The Writ Appeal by the appellants failed before a Division Bench of the High Court.The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, principally relied upon two cir-(i) The hospital was availing of funds for a part of its expenditure and was running a sixty bedded hospital which constitutes a public duty; and(ii) There was a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court in Satyabrata Chakraborty v State of Arunachal Pradesh 2005 (4) GLT 150 , holding that Ramakrishna Mission fell with the category of other authorities under Articles 12 and 226 of the Consti- tution. The High Court held that this decision of the learned Single Judge which had held the field for thirteen years should not be disturbed. It was further held that the appellant is running a very large hospital in the State and utilised public funds for a part of its operation and would be amenable to writ jurisdiction. While answering the preliminary issues against the appellants, the High Court directed that the appeal be placed for hearing subsequently.10. While entertaining the present proceedings, this Court by its order dated 19 No- vember 2018 issued notice and granted a stay of the judgment and order of the High Court dated 6 April 2018. In pursuance of the order issuing notice, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India through the Ministry of Tribal Affairs as well as by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh11. The State government, in support of the view which has been taken by the High Court, has submitted(i) The land over which Ramakrishna Mission Hospital was constructed was allotted to the appellants on 12 July 1984 on a concessional rate;(ii) Subsequently on 4 May 2005, additional land admeasuring 4.66 acres was also allotted on a concessional rate; and(iii) The hospital receives grants from the State government12. The counter affidavit filed by the Union of India does not require to be dealt with, since the Ministry of Tribal Affairs is not concerned with the subject matter of the present appeal.

Reasoning:
16. Ramakrishna Mission runs a 263 bedded hospital at Itanagar. The grant in aid which is provided by the State government covers the cost of running 60 beds out of 263 bedded hospital. Relevant factual data in regard to the nature and extent of the grants has been placed on record. About 32.26 per cent of the total income of the hos- pital for 2014-2015, 23.33 for 2015-16 and 22.53 per cent for 2016-17 was from the grants provided by the State government. The revenue expenditure, the audited bal- ance sheets and accounts of the hospital indicate that 35.23 per cent of the expenditure for 2014-2015, 23.83 per cent for 2015-2016 and 20.57 per cent for 2016-2017 was borne from the finances provided by the State government17. In assessing whether the appellants are amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, we proceed on the basis of the following circumstances which have been pressed in aid both on behalf of the original petitioner before the High Court and, in re- sponse to the present appeal, by the State(i) A portion of the income of the hospital is generated out of the grants which are received from the State; and(ii) Land has been made available for the construction of the hospital by the State government on a concessional rateThe grant by the State government covers only a portion, namely, 60 beds out of the 263-beds of the hospital at Itanagar. Significantly, the State government does not con- trol the day to day functioning of the hospital. The management of the hospital is exclu- sively with the Ramakrishna Mission. Since the State government finances through its grants a portion of the income of the hospital, it requires the audited accounts to be submitted to the State government for scrutiny19. The hospital is a branch of the Ramakrishna Mission and is subject to its control. The Mission was established by Swami Vivekanand, the foremost disciple of Sri Ra- makrishna Paramhansa. Service to humanity is for the organisation co-equal with ser- vice to God as is reflected in the motto Atmano Mokshartham Jagad Hitaya Cha. The main object of the Ramakrishna Mission is to impart knowledge in and promote the study of Vedanta and its principles propounded by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa and practically illustrated by his own life and of comparative theology in its widest form. Its objects include, inter alia to establish, maintain, carry on and assist schools, colleges, universities, research institutions, libraries, hospitals and take up development and gen- eral welfare activities for the benefit of the underprivileged/ backward/ tribal people of society without any discrimination. These activities are voluntary, charitable and non- profit making in nature. The activities undertaken by the Mission, a non-profit entity are not closely related to those performed by the state in its sovereign capacity nor do they partake of the nature of a public duty20. The Governing Body of the Mission is constituted by members of the Board of Trustees of Ramakrishna Math and is vested with the power and authority to manage the organization. The properties and funds of the Mission and its management vest in the Governing Body. Any person can become a member of the Mission if elected by the Governing Body. Members on roll form the quorum of the annual general meetings. The Managing Committee comprises of members appointed by the Governing Body for managing the affairs of the Mission. Under the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the Mission, there is no governmental control in the functioning, ad- ministration and day to day management of the Mission. The conditions of service of the employees of the hospital are governed by service rules which are framed by the Mission without the intervention of any governmental body21. In coming to the conclusion that the appellants fell within the description of an au- thority under Article 226, the High Court placed a considerable degree of reliance on the judgment of a two judge Bench of this Court in Andi Mukta (supra). Andi Mukta (supra) was a case where a public trust was running a college which was affiliated to Gujarat University, a body governed by State legislation. The teachers of the University and all its affiliated colleges were governed, insofar as their pay scales were concerned, by the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. A dispute over pay scales raised by the association representing the teachers of the University had been the subject matter of an award of the Chancellor, which was accepted by the govern- ment as well as by the University. The management of the college, in question, decided to close it down without prior approval. A writ petition was instituted before the High Court for the enforcement of the right of the teachers to receive their salaries and termi- nal benefits in accordance with the governing provisions. In that context, this Court dealt with the issue as to whether the management of the college was amenable to the writ jurisdiction. A number of circumstances weighed in the ultimate decision of this Court, including the(i) The trust was managing an affiliated college;(ii) The college was in receipt of government aid;(iii) The aid of the government played a major role in the control, management and work of the educational institution;(iv) Aided institutions, in a similar manner as government institutions, discharge a public function of imparting education to students;(v) All aided institutions are governed by the rules and regulations of the affiliating University;(vi) Their activities are closely supervised by the University; and(vii) Employment in such institutions is hence, not devoid of a public character and is governed by the decisions taken by the University which are binding on the man- agement22. It was in the above circumstances that this Court came to the conclusion that the service conditions of the academic staff do not partake of a private character, but are governed by a right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. A breach of the duty, it was held, would be amenable to the remedy of a writ of mandamus. While the Court recognized that the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting rights of people cannot be put into watertight compartments , it laid down two exceptions where the remedy of mandamus would not be available:15. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to mandamus…23. Following the decision in Andi Mukta (supra), this Court has had the occasion to re-visit the underlying principles in successive decisions. This has led to the evolution of principles to determine what constitutes a public duty and public function and whether the writ of mandamus would be available to an individual who seeks to enforce her right29. More recently in K K Saksena v International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (2015) 4 SCC 670 , another two judge Bench of this Court held that a writ would not lie to enforce purely private law rights. Consequently, even if a body is performing a public duty and is amenable to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, all its decisions would not be subject to judicial review. The Court held thus:43. What follows from a minute and careful reading of the aforesaid judgments of this Court is that if a person or authority is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly a writ petition under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body. However, we may add that even in such cases writ would not lie to enforce private law rights. There are a catena of judgments on this aspect and it is not necessary to refer to those judgments as that is the basic principle of judicial review of an action under the administrative law. The reason is obvious. A private law is that part of a legal system which is a part of common law that involves relationships between individuals, such as law of contract or torts. Therefore, even if writ petition would be maintainable against an authority, which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution, before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus, the Court has to satisfy that action of such an authority, which is challenged, is in the domain of public law as distinguished from private law.Thus, even if the body discharges a public function in a wider sense, there is no public law element involved in the enforcement of a private contract of service30. Having analysed the circumstances which were relied upon by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, we are of the view that in running the hospital, Ramakrishna Mission does not discharge a public function. Undoubtedly, the hospital is in receipt of some element of grant. The grants which are received by the hospital cover only a part of the expenditure. The terms of the grant do not indicate any form of governmental control in the management or day to day functioning of the hospital. The nature of the work which is rendered by Ramakrishna Mission, in general, including in relation to its activities concerning the hospital in question is purely voluntary31. Before an organisation can be held to discharge a public function, the function must be of a character that is closely related to functions which are performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. There is nothing on record to indicate that the hospital performs functions which are akin to those solely performed by State authorities. Medical services are provided by private as well as State entities. The character of the organisation as a public authority is dependent on the circumstances of the case. In setting up the hospital, the Mission cannot be construed as having assumed a public function. The hospital has no monopoly status conferred or mandated by law. That it was the first in the State to provide service of a particular dispensation does not make it an authority within the meaning of Article 226. State governments provide concessional terms to a variety of organisations in order to attract them to set up establishments within the territorial jurisdiction of the State. The State may encourage them as an adjunct of its social policy or the imperatives of economic development. The mere fact that land had been provided on a concessional basis to the hospital would not by itself result in the conclusion that the hospital performs a public function. In the present case, the absence of state control in the management of the hospital has a significant bearing on our coming to the conclusion that the hospital does not come within the ambit of a public authority32. It has been submitted before us that the hospital is subject to regulation by the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010. Does the regulation of hospitals and nursing homes by law render the hospital a statutory body? Private individuals and organizations are subject to diverse obligations under the law. The law is a ubiquitous phenomenon. From the registration of birth to the reporting of death, law imposes obligations on diverse aspects of individual lives. From incorporation to dissolution, business has to act in compliance with law. But that does not make every entity or activity an authority under Article 226. Regulation by a statute does not constitute the hospital as a body which is constituted under the statute. Individuals and organisations are subject to statutory requirements in a whole host of activities today. That by itself cannot be conclusive of whether such an individual or organisation discharges a public function.33. Thus, contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by statutory provisions. The only exception to this principle arises in a situation where the contract of service is governed or regulated by a statutory provision. Hence, for instance, in K K Saksena (supra) this Court held that when an employee is a workman governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it constitutes an exception to the general principle that a contract of personal service is not capable of being specifically enforced or performed34. It is of relevance to note that the Act was enacted to provide for the regulation and registration of clinical establishments with a view to prescribe minimum standards of facilities and services. The Act, inter alia, stipulates conditions to be satisfied by clinical establishments for registration. However, the Act does not govern contracts of service entered into by the Hospital with respect to its employees. These fall within the ambit of purely private contracts, against which writ jurisdiction cannot lie. The sanctity of this distinction must be preserved35. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellants are amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as an authority within the meaning of the Article.