Article 226 writs are not maintainable for salary claims against privately managed affiliated colleges.

The petitioner, a Professor of Geography at Maharana Pratap College, Mohania, an affiliated college managed by its Governing Body, sought directions for release of his withheld salary for January–April 2026 amounting to ₹12,32,000, regular monthly payment of salary, and protection against interference with his duties.

The University raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable because the substantive reliefs were directed against the College and its Governing Body, whereas the University’s role was limited primarily to approving decisions of the affiliated college and exercising statutory supervisory powers under Section 57(B) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976.

The petitioner relied on Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 2007 of 2025, and The Secretary of the Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya v. Dr. Shujaat Ali Khan to contend that the writ petition was maintainable.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for recovery of salary against an affiliated college and its Governing Body, where the substantive obligation to pay salary rests upon the College and not the University.

2. Whether the performance of public functions by an affiliated educational institution makes an individual service dispute concerning non-payment of salary amenable to writ jurisdiction.

3. Whether the University’s statutory role under Section 57(B) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 created a basis for granting the reliefs claimed against the University or its authorities.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which writs may issue to any person or authority for enforcement of fundamental rights or “for any other purpose,” but held that judicial review of a private body’s action requires a public-law element.

Relying on Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691, the Court recognised the expanded scope of Article 226 beyond bodies qualifying as “State” under Article 12.

However, applying St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498, the Court held that although an educational institution may perform public duties, individual service disputes or breaches of ordinary contracts of employment, absent statutory regulation or a public-law element, are not enforceable through writ jurisdiction.

The Court also relied on Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, (2024) 16 SCC 598, for the distinction between maintainability against a body performing public functions and judicial review of decisions lacking a public element.

The Full Bench decision in Manju Devi v. District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur, 1987 BLJ 823, was relied upon for the principle that a teacher in a privately managed, State-aided institution cannot maintain a writ petition against termination by the private management.

The Court distinguished The Secretary of the Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya v. Dr. Shujaat Ali Khan, L.P.A. No. 1016 of 2024, because that case concerned the University’s statutory role in the appointment of a Principal under Section 57(B), unlike the present salary dispute.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claims concerned the non-payment of salary by Maharana Pratap College and its Governing Body, not any independent action or omission of the University.

Although the College was affiliated to the University and the University possessed supervisory powers under Section 57(B), affiliation and performance of the public function of education did not convert every employment-related dispute into a public-law dispute.

Applying St. Mary’s Education Society and Army Welfare Education Society, the Court held that the claim for salary was essentially founded on the private contract of service between the petitioner and the College. No statutory service provision, violation of a public duty, or other public-law element was shown.

The decisions relied upon by the petitioner were therefore inapplicable: Andi Mukta established the broad scope of Article 226 but did not permit writ enforcement of every private contractual claim, while Mirza Ghalib College involved a statutory University function relating to appointment, not payment of salary by the College.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and any pending application was also disposed of.