01Facts
The petitioners, the Principal and an Accountant at Basavakalyan Engineering College, challenged their termination orders dated 15 October 2026 and the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Principal on 27 October 2026.
pp. 2–3They sought quashing of those orders and restoration to their positions with consequential benefits.
pp. 2–3The petition came before the Court for preliminary hearing.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was maintainable to challenge the termination of employees by a private educational trust, where the challenged employment action was not shown to involve a statutory service condition or a public-law element.
pp. 4–8ii.2. Whether the petitioners’ challenges to the appointment of respondent No. 4 and their requests for reinstatement and consequential relief could be determined in writ jurisdiction.
pp. 3–4, 803Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to review actions of a person or body discharging public duties or functions where the action has a public-law element.
pp. 4–8However, an individual employment dispute arising from an ordinary contract of service is not ordinarily amenable to Article 226 where the service conditions are not governed by statute, the employer is not “State” under Article 12, and the challenged action has no public-law element.
pp. 4–8The Court applied the principles stated in St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498, particularly paragraph 75, including that a private educational institution’s public functions do not, by themselves, make its employment decisions reviewable in writ jurisdiction.
pp. 4–804Reasoning
The Court treated the challenged termination orders as actions of respondent No. 2, the President of a private educational trust, and held that respondent No. 2 was neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State under Article 12.
p. 4Applying St. Mary’s Education Society, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ employment-related claims did not disclose a public-law element or a statutory basis for judicial review under Article 226.
pp. 4–8It therefore declined to examine the merits of the terminations or the appointment.
pp. 4–805Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving the petitioners at liberty to challenge the impugned orders before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
p. 8It directed that, if such proceedings were commenced, the jurisdictional court or authority should consider any interim-relief application in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
p. 8The Registry was also directed to return the certified annexures after substituting photocopies.
p. 8Original Court PDF
DR ASHOK VANGERIvsBASAVAKALYAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
