DR ASHOK VANGERI vs BASAVAKALYAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11777
WP No. 204428 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030117942026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 204428 OF 2026 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1. DR ASHOK VANGERI
S/O MANIKRAO
AGE 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
BASAVAKALYAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
BASAVAKALYAN , DIST BIDAR,
R/AT 9-13-91, VIDYANAGAR COLONY,
BIDAR - 585401.
2. SRI SUBHASH CHANDRAYYA
S/O BANDAYYA
AGE 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS ACCOUTANT,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
BASAVAKALYAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST BIDAR
R/AT RANJOL KHENI,
TQ AND DIST BIDAR - 585329.
Digitally
signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHESH PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVAKALYAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST
BASAVAKALYAN
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11777
WP No. 204428 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030117942026
GOVERNING COUNCIL,
VICE PRESIDENT,
BASAVAKALYAN, DIST BIDAR - 585327.
2. SRI BASAVARAJ PATIL ATTUR
S/O SHANKRAPPA PATIL,
AGE 74 YEARS,
PRESIDENT, BASAVAKALYAN EDUCATION TRUST,
BASAVAKALYAN, DIST BIDAR - 585327.
3. SRI DHANRAJ
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA TALAMTALLI,
AGE 57 YEARS
GENERAL SECRETARY,
BASAVAKALYAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,
BASAVAKALYAN, DIST BIDAR 585327.
4. SRI VIJAYKUMAR DEVAPPA
S/O DEVAPPA,
AGE MAJOR
OCC PRINCIPAL
R/AT MUCHHALAMBA
TQ HULSUR,
DIST BIDAR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, I)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE INDIVIDUAL
TERMINATION ORDERS DATED 15-10-2026 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 AND
PETITIONER NO.2, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-K AND K1.II)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE APPOINTMENT
ODER NO. BET/BKEC/OFFICE/2026-2027/24978 DATED 27-10-
2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 APPOINTING
RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PRINCIPAL OF BASAVAKALYAN
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11777
WP No. 204428 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030117942026
ENGINEERING COLLEGE, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-N.III)
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE
PETITIONERS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS AND PERMIT
THEM TO DISCHARGE THEIR DUTIES, WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.IV) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, quashing the individual
termination orders dated 15-10-2026 issued by
respondent no.2 against petitioner no.1 and
petitioner no.2, produced as Annexures-K and K1.
ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, quashing the appointment
oder no. BET/BKEC/OFFICE/2026-2027/24978 dated
27-10-2026 issued by respondent no.2 appointing
respondent no.4 as principal of Basavakalyan
engineering college, produced as Annexure-N.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
direction directing the respondents to restore the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11777
WP No. 204428 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030117942026
petitioners to their respective positions and permit
them to discharge their duties, with all consequential
benefits in the interest of justice and equity.
iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this
Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice and equity”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
3. The petitioners are assailing the termination
orders dated 15.10.2026 issued by the respondent No.2-
President of a private education trust at Basavakalyan,
Bidar district. In my considered view, the respondent No.2
is neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of St. Mary's
Education Society and Another v. Rajendra Prasad
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11777
WP No. 204428 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030117942026
1
Bhargava and Ors , at paragraph No.75 has held as
under:
“75. We may sum up our final conclusions as under:
75.1. An application under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable against a person or a
body discharging public duties or public functions.
The public duty cast may be either statutory or
otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the
person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation
to the public involving the public law element.
Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public
function, it must be established that the body or the
person was seeking to achieve the same for the
collective benefit of the public or a section of it and
the authority to do so must be accepted by the
public.
75.2. Even if it be assumed that an educational
institution is imparting public duty, the act
complained of must have a direct nexus with the
discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public
law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved
to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs
or breach of mutual contracts without having any
1
(2023) 4 SCC 498
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11777
WP No. 204428 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030117942026
public element as its integral part cannot be rectified
through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever
Courts have intervened in their exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service
conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions
or the employer had the status of “State” within the
expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found
that the action complained of has public law element.
75.3. It must be consequently held that while a body
may be discharging a public function or performing a
public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable
to judicial review by a constitutional court, its
employees would not have the right to invoke the
powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in
respect of matter relating to service where they are
not governed or controlled by the statutory
provisions. An educational institution may perform
myriad functions touching various facets of public life
and in the societal sphere. While such of those
functions as would fall within the domain of a “public
function” or “public duty” be undisputedly open to
challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely
within the confines of an ordinary contract of service,
having no statutory force or backing, cannot be
recognised as being amenable to challenge under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11777
WP No. 204428 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030117942026
service conditions being controlled or governed by
statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the
realm of an ordinary contract of service.
75.4. Even if it be perceived that imparting
education by private unaided school is a public duty
within the expanded expression of the term, an
employee of a non-teaching staff engaged by the
school for the purpose of its administration or
internal management is only an agency created by it.
It is immaterial whether “A” or “B” is employed by
school to discharge that duty. In any case, the terms
of employment of contract between a school and
non-teaching staff cannot and should not be
construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation
to impart education. This is particularly in respect to
the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated
against a particular employee. It is only where the
removal of an employee of non-teaching staff is
regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation
by the employer in contravention of law may be
interfered with by the Court. But such interference
will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the
basis of interference in discharge of public duty.
75.5. From the pleadings in the original writ petition,
it is apparent that no element of any public law is
agitated or otherwise made out. In other words, the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11777
WP No. 204428 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030117942026
action challenged has no public element and writ of
mandamus cannot be issued as the action was
essentially of a private character.”
4. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge
the impugned orders before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law.
5. Registry shall return the certified copies of the
Annexures, after substituting the same with its
photocopies.
6. If the petitioners initiate appropriate
proceedings before the jurisdictional Court/authority, the
Court/authority shall consider the interim relief sought by
the petitioners in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
NJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27