The writ petition against a private educational institution is maintainable where discharge of staff violates principles of natural justice, despite the institution not receiving government aid.

ORDER :

MAINTAINABILITY

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question several orders of discharge and consequential relieving orders from duties as Tutors in the Kempegowda Institute of Nursing and R.V.S. College of Nursing Sciences and have sought for a consequential direction directing respondents 3 and 4 to forthwith restore the petitioners into service as Nursing Tutors in the respective institutes of Nursing along with other consequential reliefs.

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows: -

The 4^th respondent is Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Sangha or Society’ for short). The 4^th respondent runs educational institutions, two of which are respondents 2 and 3/Kempegowda Institute of Nursing and R.V.S. College of Nursing Sciences. On 28-05-2024, it appears that the Governing Council of the Society then existing, passes a resolution to the effect that vacancies of Nursing Tutors should be filled by direct recruitment. In pursuance thereof, on 14-09-2024 an Employment Notification was published inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the posts of Nursing Tutors in the respective nursing institutions. On 14-10-2024, it is the averment, that the process of selection for the posts was conducted by an Expert Committee comprised of a representative of Directorate of Medical Education and a representative of Rajiv Gandhi Insititute of Health Sciences among others. On 05-11-2024, orders of appointment as Nursing Tutors were issued to each of the petitioners. On issuance of appointment orders, it appears that Tutors joined service and were serving till the forenoon of 17-02-2025 and were discharged from service from 17-02-2025. Therefore, Nursing Tutors/petitioners worked for about 100 days from the date of appointment till the date of their discharge. Further averments that are narrated in the petition are not necessary to be noticed. The petitioners being aggrieved by the orders of discharge and consequential relieving from service are at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri H. Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri M. Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, Ms.Farah Fathima, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Sri Shivarudra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Smt. Jyoti M. Maradi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri H.Subramanya Jois appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners who were appointed, by following due process of law, have been unceremoniously removed. The Selection Committee was constituted which had the representatives as necessary in law. Once offered appointments, it would not be within the powers of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to unceremoniously fire the petitioners. The orders are camouflage, as orders of discharge have a dispute between the two wings of the Management. He would seek the petition be allowed and orders of discharge be quashed and consequential direction of reinstatement of these petitioners into service, along with consequential benefits, be issued.

5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri P. S. Rajagopal appearing for respondents 2 to 4 project a threshold bar of maintainability and entertainability of the petition. It is his submission that the 4^th respondent is a Society registered under the MYSORE SCIENTIFIC AND CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGULATIONS 1904, which is later governed under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Sangha has established respondents 2 and 3 Nursing Institutions. The institutions are, therefore, private educational institutions as defined under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (‘the Act’ for short). They do not receive any aid from the State. The petitioners are wanting to enforce contract of personal service, which is not am