1. Writ petition challenging termination of services of an employee by a private society. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 617
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
Atal Khandelwal, S/o. Shri R.C. Khandelwal - Petitioner
Versus
Institute Of Health Management Research, Through Its Secretary – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10690 of 2008
Decided On : 17-02-2026
Important Points
A registered society performing public functions is not automatically 'State' under Article 12. Service disputes arising from private contracts without statutory backing are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even if the employer performs a public duty.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 12 and 226 - Societies Registration Act - Maintainability of writ petition - Termination of services - Body performing public function - Whether a registered society performing public functions qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 - A society registered under the Societies Act does not ipso facto fall within the ambit of Article 12 in the absence of statutory creation or effective governmental control (Para 5) - Even if a body is performing a public duty and its actions are generally amenable to judicial review, employees cannot invoke the powers of the High Court under Article 226 in respect of service matters where they are not governed or controlled by statutory provisions (Para 8) - A service dispute in the private realm arising out of a private contract does not touch any public law element, even if the employer imparts education or performs other public duties (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
An employee challenged an order of termination of services and sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The respondent is a registered society working in the field of public health management and policy support. The petitioner contended that because the respondent discharges public functions, it is an 'other authority' under Article 12 and is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the challenge to the termination order arose out of a service relationship that was essentially contractual and private in nature, without any demonstrable public law element.
Issues: Whether a registered society performing public functions constitutes 'State' under Article 12 and whether a dispute arising from a private contract of service is maintainable under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere discharge of public functions does not render a registered society 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 without statutory creation or effective governmental control. Furthermore, decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, are not amenable to challenge under Article 226, regardless of whether the organization performs public duties.
Result: Writ petition dismissed in limine.
Facts of the case:
An employee challenged an order of termination of services and sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The respondent is a registered society working in the field of public health management and policy support. The petitioner contended that because the respondent discharges public functions, it is an 'other authority' under Article 12 and is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the challenge to the termination order arose out of a service relationship that was essentially contractual and private in nature, without any demonstrable public law element.
Issues: Whether a registered society performing public functions constitutes 'State' under Article 12 and whether a dispute arising from a private contract of service is maintainable under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere discharge of public functions does not render a registered society 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 without statutory creation or effective governmental control. Furthermore, decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, are not amenable to challenge under Article 226, regardless of whether the organization performs public duties.
Result: Writ petition dismissed in limine.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- labour and employment
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ishaan Khandelwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rachit Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ishaan Khandelwal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rachit Sharma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: institution discharges public function so amenable to writ. Respondent: society not State under Article 12; remedy lies elsewhere. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. A service dispute between a private employer and employee arising from a private contract lacks a public law element for writ jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. A body performing public functions is not thereby amenable to writ jurisdiction for private contractual employment disputes lacking statutory backing. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Writ petition dismissed in limine on ground of maintainability. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. When is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable against a private educational institution in a service dispute?
Only when the employment relationship involves a public law element or is governed by statutory provisions; a purely contractual service dispute is not maintainable. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Does an institution discharging a public function automatically become 'State' under Article 12?
No, a society registered under the Societies Act does not ipso facto become State under Article 12 in the absence of statutory creation or effective governmental control. (Para 5 , 7 )
8. Can a service dispute arising out of a private contract be challenged under Article 226?
No, a breach of a private employment contract does not involve a public law element and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
JUDGMENT :
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court, assailing the order dated 19.07.2008, whereby his services have been terminated and prayed for reinstatement of his services with all consequential benefits.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the present writ petition. The said issue, being foundational, must be considered at the threshold.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1-Indian Institute of Health Management Research, is an institution working in the field of public health management and policy support and therefore, discharges public function. It is contended that once an institution is shown to be performing a public function, it would qualify as ‘other authority’ within the realm of Article 12 and would be amenable to writ jurisdiction.
4. It is further submitted that where such an institution, while discharging public functions, violates fundamental or other legal rights, a writ petition under Article 226 would be maintainable. The scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is much wider than it is under Article 32, as the High Court is empowered to issue writs to ‘any person or authority’ and that too not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for ‘any other purpose’. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court:-
A. Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 691.
B. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University & Ors., (2015) 16 SCC 530.
C. Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 649.
D. Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 733.
5. Per Contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is not a statutory body and that mere discharge of public functions would not render it ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. It is contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala , (2013) 16 SCC 82, held that a society registered under the Societies Act does not ‘ipso facto’ fall within the ambit of Article 12 in the absence of statutory creation or effective governmental control. It is also urged that the petitioner is free to raise his grievance in an appropriate forum as provided by law. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable for dismissal.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors., 2024 INSC 501, upon considering the similar facts, framed the following issues and observed as under:-
“6. The following two questions of law fall for our consideration:
a. Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it? In other words, whether a service dispute in the private realm involving a private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
b. Even if it is assumed that the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a body performing public duty amenable to writ jurisdiction, whether all its decisions are subject to judicial review or only those decisions which have public law element therein can be judicially reviewed under the writ jurisdiction
42. In view of the aforesaid, nothing more is required to be discussed in the present appeals. We are of the view that the High Court committed an egregious error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondents herein holding that the appellant society is a “State” within A
