Service conditions governed by statutory College Code are enforceable under Article 226 despite private management.

The Respondent (an Associate Professor) was terminated from the Appellant Institute—an aided private engineering college—on November 8, 2025, following allegations of financial fraud (overlapping salary from two institutions) and misconduct related to a defamation case.

The Respondent challenged the termination via a writ petition.

The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, holding it maintainable and setting aside the termination as it was stigmatic and passed without a proper enquiry.

The Institute appealed, contending it is a self-financed private body not subject to writ jurisdiction and that its internal inquiry was sufficient.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a private aided technical institute whose service conditions are governed by a statutory College Code.

Whether the termination of the respondent’s services without a formal departmental enquiry was legally sustainable.

Whether the court, upon finding a procedural lapse in the enquiry, should reinstate the employee or remand the matter.

The Court applied the principle from Prabhakar Ramkrishna Jodh v. A.L. Pande, which establishes that a "College Code" framed under statutory power has the force of law and creates justiciable legal rights for teachers.

It referenced St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, distinguishing that while private contracts of service aren't usually subject to writ jurisdiction, an exception exists where service conditions are regulated by statutory provisions.

Regarding remand, it followed Chairman, LIC v. A. Masilamani and Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, which mandate that if an enquiry is found procedurally deficient, the proper course is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to redo the process from the stage of the vitiation.

The Court found that the Appellant Institute is affiliated with Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya and governed by Statute No. 30 (College Code), which was framed under the University's statutory powers.

Consequently, even as a private entity, its adherence to these statutory service rules is subject to judicial review under Article 226.

On merits, the Court observed that the Respondent was terminated solely based on a show-cause notice and reply despite the allegations being stigmatic and factual in nature.

This violated the principles of natural justice and the specific disciplinary procedures outlined in the College Code.

However, the Court noted that the Single Judge erred by simply directing reinstatement; established precedent requires that when a termination is set aside for procedural irregularity, the employer must be allowed to complete the enquiry from the point of error.

The Court set aside the termination order dated November 8, 2025, and remanded the matter to the departmental authority to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the law.

The Respondent is to be treated as under suspension pending the enquiry, which must be completed within four months.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of this modification.