Private self-financed institutes are amenable to writ jurisdiction if their service conditions are governed by a statutory College Code. Additionally, any stigmatic termination order passed without a mandatory enquiry as prescribed by the governing statutory rules is illegal and violates the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) by Additional Director of respondent no.3 Institute thereby terminating his service in terms of Clause vii of his order of appointment dated 11.10.2013.

2. The respondents have filed the return wherein a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition against the respondent no.3 Institute, which is a self-financed educational private institute, has been raised and vehemently argued by their learned counsel. The arguments are accordingly heard on preliminary objection as also on merits.

3. The learned counsel for respondents argued that respondent no.3- Rustamji Institute of Technology (RJIT), is an Engineering College established by Society run by Boarder Security Force with an object to provide education to the wards of BSF & CAPF personnel. It is an unaided private education institute and is recognized as private self-financed institute as per AICTE norms. The Institute is affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (RGPV), Bhopal. It is his submission that the State/Central Govt. has no control over the affairs of the Institute, particularly over the service dispute of its staff. Thus, the Institute, being a self-financed private educational institute, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. As per his submission, the Institute does not fall in the definition of ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he relied upon order passed by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar vs. State of M.P. & ors. in W.P. No.35484 of 2024 wherein this Court upheld the preliminary objection in relation to respondent no.3. He thus prayed for dismissal of writ petition as not maintainable.

4. Refuting the submission made by respondents’ counsel, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent no.3 Institute is an aided institution as is evident from document filed as Annexure P/2. He submitted that service conditions of petitioner are governed by Statute 30 of Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (College Code Statute), 2007 (in short ‘College Code’). It is his submission that the College Code has been made by State Govt. in exercise of powers under RGPV Adhiniyam, 1998 and, therefore, respondent no.3 is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. He also argued that the petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor (Information Technology) vide order, dated 11.10.2013 and was discharging his work on the said post efficiently and honestly. However, on the basis of petty allegations, which are not existing in the facts of the case, he has been terminated from service. He argued that the action of respondent no.3 is ex-facie illegal and is in violation of principles of natural justice. He thus prayed for interference by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for respondents in his turn refuted the submissions made by petitioner’s counsel and argued that the impugned order has been passed on account of certain acts of misconduct committed by petitioner. It is his submission that show cause notice was duly served to the petitioner and after taking his explanation, the impugned order is passed. He thus submitted that requirement of principles of natural justice has been duly satisfied. He submitted that no interference is warranted by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

7. As seen from order, dated 25.05.2024 (Annexure R/2) issued by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), the respondent no.3 is recognized as a ‘Private Self Financing Institute. The petitioner has though stated in writ petition that respondent no.3 is an aided institute based upon document filed as Annexure P/2, however, the same is specifically denied by the respondents and have made specific averment that the Institute is self-financed institute and meet