Dr. Madhurima Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23317

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 12 and 226 - Maintainability of writ petition against private/aided educational institution - Writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable only if the respondent is ‘State’ under Article 12 or discharges public functions with a public law element - Service disputes of employees not governed by statutory provisions remain purely contractual and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Paras 15, 16, 19-22)

(B) Private educational institution - Even if imparting education is a public duty, individual employment matters such as termination, re-fixation of salary, or transfer of charge, without statutory backing, do not involve a public law element - Employees cannot invoke Article 226 for service conditions unless the employer is ‘State’ or the action has a direct nexus with a public duty. (Paras 20, 22-24)

(C) Aided institution - Receipt of grant-in-aid does not by itself make the institution ‘State’ or render its employment decisions subject to writ jurisdiction in the absence of deep and pervasive government control or statutory regulation of service conditions. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
Three writ petitions were filed by employees of private/aided educational institutions challenging termination, transfer of charge, and re-fixation of salary. The petitioners argued that the institutions were affiliated to universities, received grants, or were under administrative/financial control of a public sector undertaking, and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction. The respondents contended they were private societies not falling under Article 12, and the disputes were contractual.

Findings of Court:
The court held that none of the institutions qualified as ‘State’ under Article 12. The service conditions were not governed by statutory provisions; the actions complained of (termination, charge transfer, salary re-fixation) were purely contractual and lacked a public law element. Even for the aided institution, the receipt of grant-in-aid did not convert employment decisions into public functions. The writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, but liberty was granted to pursue alternative remedies.

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a private educational institution for service disputes. (ii) Whether the institutions were ‘State’ or discharging public duties. (iii) Whether the actions had a public law element.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from Supreme Court judgments: (a) an entity is ‘State’ only if it is created by statute or under deep and pervasive government control (Pradeep Kumar Biswas); (b) even if a private body performs a public function, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with that function and a public law element (St. Mary’s Education Society); (c) service matters of employees not governed by statutory provisions are contractual and not amenable to writ jurisdiction (Army Welfare Education Society). The court found no statutory regulation of service conditions and no public law element in the impugned orders.

Result: All three writ petitions dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioners granted liberty to seek remedies under relevant law, with exclusion of time spent in this court for limitation purposes. (Paras 25-27)

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Maintainability of writ petitions against private/aided educational institutions for service disputes under Article 226. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )

2. Petitioners argued maintainability based on affiliation, grant-in-aid, and public function; respondents argued private nature and contractual dispute. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )

3. All writ petitions dismissed as not maintainable; liberty to seek alternative remedies with exclusion of time for limitation. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )

4. What constitutes 'State' under Article 12 for a private educational institution to be amenable to writ jurisdiction?

The institution must be created by statute and exercise governmental functions; mere financial support or remote control does not make it 'State'. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )

5. Is a writ petition maintainable against a private educational institution for service disputes of its employees?

No, unless service conditions are regulated by statutory provisions or the action has a public law element; private contractual disputes are not amenable. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

6. Does violation of university statutes by a private institution make a writ petition maintainable?

No, such non-compliance may be a ground for challenge before an appropriate forum but does not confer writ jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 23 )

7. Does receipt of grant-in-aid by an educational institution make it amenable to writ jurisdiction for service disputes?

No, even an aided institution's internal service matters without public law element are not maintainable under Article 226. (Para 24 )

CAV ORDER

1. Since an identical issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition against private educational institution is involved in all the writ petitions, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. From perusal of the records of the case, it is quite vivid that the petitioners are either teachers of the private or aided educational institutions, therefore, the point emerged for determination is:-

“Whether the writ petition against private/ aided institution is maintainable or not?

3. To ascertain, the Point for determination, this Court has taken note of the brief facts of each of the case.

4. WPS No. 11842/2025 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the Principal Incharge of Bhilai Institute of Technology, Durg by which services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect on the following facts:-

(A) The petitioner was appointed on 09.02.1994 on the post of Assistant Professor in respondent/Bhilai Institute of Technology, Durg and was promoted on the post of Associate Professor vide order dated 15.02.2003 and on the post of Professor vide order dated 24.06.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that as per clause 3 of the promotion order dated 24.06.2008, the services of the petitioner can be terminated by respondent No. 3 by paying three months salary in lieu of notice and clause 4 prescribes that the teaching staff of the respondent No. 3 shall be governed by the general terms and conditions of service as per college code applicable under C.G. Vishva Vidyalaya Adhiniyam and such other conditions laid down by the Institution/affiliating University/AICTE from time to time but ignoring these provisions of the University, college code and the rules framed by AICTE, respondent No. 3 issued termination order dated 29.09.2025 with immediate effect.

5. WPS No. 11867 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.09.2025 issued by the Principal, Kalyan Post Graduate College, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg by which charge of departmental work has been given to respondent No. 3 who is junior according to the petitioner on the following facts:-

(A) The petitioner vide order dated 08.09.2004 was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor and joined on 13.09.2004 on the said post in Kalyan Post Graduate College, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg which is a government-aided institution affiliated to Hemchand Yadav University, Durg. Respondent No. 3 was also appointed on the same date and joined on 13.09.2004 and he was subsequently transferred in 2004 to another institution as Principal, where his salary and allowances were paid by the said management. The case of the petitioner is that on superannuation of one Dr. (Smt.) Pushpalata Sharma on 31.08.2023, the Principal, the charge of Head of Department (Faculty of Education) was given to the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 24.09.2025, the respondent Principal withdrew the departmental charge from the petitioner and handed over it to respondent No. 3, who is junior to the petitioner.

6. WPS No. 6150 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 10.03.2014 by which petitioner’s salary was re-fixed by the Steel Education Society directing the School Management Committee, Delhi Public School to pay the dues of the petitioner on the following facts :-

(A) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Principal, Delhi Public School, Bhilai on 04.03.1996 and served continuously from 15.05.1996 to 18.04.2013. The School Managing Committee approved extension of service up to 31.03.2015 vide order dated 28.03.2013, but due to internal management disputes, the extension was neither communicated nor implemented and the petitioner was abruptly retired on 18.04.2013 but the petitioner’s retiral dues for Rs. 30,76,690/- have not been released and only partial payments (gratuity Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 11,39,130/-) were made. It is also case of the petitioner that after retirement, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J
Dr. Madhurima Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 11842 of 2025

Writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against private or aided educational institutions for service disputes unless the institution is 'State' under Article 12 or the action has a public law element, and service conditions are governed by statutory provisions.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What constitutes 'State' under Article 12 for a private educational institution to be amenable to writ jurisdiction?

5. Is a writ petition maintainable against a private educational institution for service disputes of its employees?

6. Does violation of university statutes by a private institution make a writ petition maintainable?

7. Does receipt of grant-in-aid by an educational institution make it amenable to writ jurisdiction for service disputes?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURNARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, JDr. Madhurima Pandey – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 11842 of 2025

Writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against private or aided educational institutions for service disputes unless the institution is 'State' under Article 12 or the action has a public law element, and service conditions are governed by statutory provisions.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What constitutes 'State' under Article 12 for a private educational institution to be amenable to writ jurisdiction?

5. Is a writ petition maintainable against a private educational institution for service disputes of its employees?

6. Does violation of university statutes by a private institution make a writ petition maintainable?

7. Does receipt of grant-in-aid by an educational institution make it amenable to writ jurisdiction for service disputes?

Cases Referred (12)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J
Dr. Madhurima Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 11842 of 2025