Writ of Mandamus cannot enforce purely private, non-statutory service contracts of faculty in private unaided institutions.

The Petitioners were teaching faculty members at the HMR Institute of Technology & Management (Respondent No. 2), a private unaided college affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Respondent No. 1).

Engaged between 2011 and 2015, their appointment letters contained a clause allowing termination via one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof.

Following the Petitioners' grievances regarding pay fixation and complaints to the AICTE regarding institutional non-compliance, Respondent No. 2 issued termination notices on September 16, 2022.

The notices effected termination simpliciter under the contractual clause without alleging misconduct.

The Petitioners challenged these notices, seeking reinstatement and alleging the action was arbitrary and retaliatory.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 against a private unaided affiliated educational institution regarding termination of faculty?

2. Whether the impleadment of statutory authorities (University, AICTE, GNCTD) introduces a public law element to a private employment dispute?

3. Whether the termination notices suffer from arbitrariness, mala fides, or breach of natural justice/statutory obligations?

The Court relied on St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, which establishes that service disputes in private unaided institutions lack a public law character unless governed by statutory provisions.

Article 226 is not a remedy for enforcing private contracts of personal service unless a public duty is involved, as held in Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan and K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage.

The Court also referenced Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain regarding the limited exceptions (statutory body breach, industrial law, or constitutional protection) where reinstatement in personal service is permissible.

The Court found the petition non-maintainable as Respondent No. 2 is a private body not constitutes "State" under Article 12, and the termination did not involve a "public law" element.

The mere fact of affiliation to a university or regulation by AICTE does not transform private employment into statutory service; Statute 24 of the University does not regulate the termination of staff in affiliated colleges.

On merits, the Court observed the terminations were "simpliciter," involving no stigma or misconduct findings, thus negating the requirement for a prior hearing or natural justice as seen in disciplinary cases.

While the Petitioners alleged the timing was retaliatory (mala fide), the Court held that chronology alone is insufficient proof of malice in the absence of a clear nexus.

The contractual notice clause was validly invoked, and the Court declined to rewrite the contract despite the Petitioners' long tenure.

Even on merits, the Court held the termination was a valid exercise of the contractual notice clause and did not violate any statutory rules.

The High Court concluded that reinstatement into personal service cannot be compelled against a private employer outside specific legal exceptions.

Petitioners were granted liberty to pursue remedies in civil or other competent fora.