Private educational institutions with public interest elements are subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and employees are entitled to protection against arbitrary actions of the employer.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this petition is the order dated 14. 9. 2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition)passed by respondent No. 3.

( 2 ) THERE is an institution known as Marathwada Institute of Technology (M. I. T.) Engineering college, Dhamcra Chola. Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the Institute ). It is imparting education to the students and awarding degree to B. E. , B. Tech. and B. C. A. (Bachelor of computer Application ). The aforesaid Institute is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh university, Meerut and U. P. Technical University in Lucknow. The aforesaid Institute is managed by a society known as Gramodyog Shiksha Mandal Dhamera Chola which is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The society has its own by-laws which is also approved by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P. , Meerut. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant Librarian by the Chairman of the college by appointment letter dated 1. 4. 2002. It is said that he was appointed against the clear and substantive, vacancy initially on probation for a period of one year. On completion of the probation period satisfactorily, in the meeting of the governing body/committee of management of the college dated 27th June, 2001, by a resolution petitioner was confirmed. Petitioner states in this petition that there is another society known as Gramodyog Shiksha Mandal, Aurangabad, maharashtra which is registered at Aurangabad, which in no way is connected or related with the present society but there appears to be some dispute in this respect as Aurangabad society claims the present society to be its branch. It appears that the Secretary of the Aurangabad Society passed some resolution on 8. 7. 2001 cancelling the primary membership of the Chairman of the institution but the same was not approved by the Vice-Chancellor of Chaudhary Charan Singh university vide its order dated 6. 10. 2001. U is said that on account of some rival dispute in respect of the affairs, petitioner has been unnecessarily taken to task and by the order impugned in this petition, petitioners services have been terminated.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri Vinod Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi who appears on behalf of the respondents.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the respondent terminating the petitioners services is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as neither the petitioner has been served with any charge-sheet nor any enquiry has proceeded and in most arbitrary manner the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a confirmed employee of the Institute which is clear from the resolution of the committee dated 27th June, 2001, Annexure-4 to the writ petition and thus passing of the impugned order, in the manner in which it has been passed, cannot be said to be justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to paras 23 to 26 of the writ petition in which it has been stated that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and without taking recourse of any disciplinary proceedings which includes the service of charge-sheet, process of enquiry, submission of enquiry officers report and then an opportunity. It has been submitted that as no process was adopted it is clear that the impugned action is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel who appears for the respondents in response to the aforesaid submission takes up an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Institution is admittedly run by the society and, therefore, writ against the respondents will not lie. It has been further argued that otherwise also petitioner is not entitled to get protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of the fact so stated in the counter-affidavit learned counsel further submit