Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for the enforcement of a private contract of service against a private unaided academic institution, absent a clear statutory nexus or public law element, particularly when the termination is non-stigmatic and governed by specific contractual termination provisions.

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The Petitioners, who were engaged as teaching faculty in HMR Institute of Technology & Management, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the termination notices dated 16th September, 2022 issued by Respondent No. 2. They also seek reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Facts

2. The dispute, in substance, arises from the termination of teaching faculty by a private unaided college affiliated to the University. The Petitioners were engaged at different stages between 2011 and 2015. Some of them entered service as Lecturers and were later appointed as Assistant Professors. The appointment record is not uniform in expression. Certain earlier letters described the engagement as temporary or contractual. The later orders, however, referred to appointment as Assistant Professor, placement either in a pay scale or on consolidated salary, probation, selection by a committee, self-appraisal, and governance by the rules and regulations of the University concerned, the State Government and HMRITM. At the same time, the appointment documents contained a clause permitting termination by one month’s notice or salary in lieu of notice.

3. The Petitioners rely on their length of service, the later appointment orders and the material submitted by the Institute to AICTE to contend that they were regular employees. They also refer to the faculty data forming part of the AICTE/RTI material on record, where some teachers were described as “Regular” and others as “Contract”. Their submission is that Respondent No. 2 cannot project them as regular faculty before the regulator, and yet describe them before this Court as employees whose services could be brought to an end as a matter of ordinary contract.

4. The Petitioners place the impugned action in the context of their earlier grievances against the Institute. They had approached this Court in WP(C) 1314/2021 seeking pay fixation in terms of the 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations. They had also submitted a complaint/representation to AICTE in August 2021 alleging that the Institute had furnished incorrect information for extension of approval, had failed to provide insurance and ERP facilities, had reflected inaccurate faculty data, had used the credentials of contractual faculty for regulatory purposes, and had not provided adequate institutional facilities.

5. The AICTE Standing Complaint Scrutiny Committee thereafter considered the complaint. It recorded that the Institute had placed documents showing salary transfers to around 110 faculty members for the preceding six months, as against the stated faculty requirement of about 75 on the applicable student-faculty ratio. The Committee also noted that material relating to insurance and infrastructure had been furnished, along with photographs said to show that some of the complainants were either not discharging duties or were found sleeping during office hours. On that basis, the complaint was closed with the observation that no further action was required.

6. Soon thereafter, on 16th September, 2022, Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned notices. The notices are materially similar. They refer to the Petitioners’ earlier appointment letters and later orders of appointment, collectivel