Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38230
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. Vijaysen Reddy, J
Vinay Vemula – Appellant
Versus
Microsoft India (R&D) Private Limited – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.20619 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinay Vemula (Party-In-Person)
For the Respondents: K. Vivek Reddy (Senior Counsel for B. Pratik Reddy), Assistant Government Pleader for Home
A private entity performing professional software services for the government does not constitute a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, and service-related contractual disputes against such entities are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when alternative statutory remedies are being pursued.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 12, Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Private employer - Alleged violation of fundamental rights and service dispute - Petitioner, a former employee, sought mandamus against a private company and its senior officials alleging illegal dismissal, coercion, and corporate misconduct - Held, a private entity, even if providing software services to the government, does not discharge a public function sufficient to be classified as 'State' under Article 12 - Writ petition against a private company regarding a service contract and personal grievances arising from employment termination is not maintainable under Article 226. (Paras 28, 30)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Mere allegation of violation of principles of natural justice does not grant immunity from the exhaustion of available alternative remedies - Where the petitioner has already approached the Joint Labour Commissioner regarding the disputed resignation, parallel writ proceedings are not permissible. (Paras 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former 'Blue Badge' employee at a software company, alleged that he was forced to resign following a period of professional harassment and retaliatory investigations into data security and corporate conduct. He claimed that the company operated like a 'State' because its projects (e.g., Digital India) addressed public functions and governmental education agendas. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a declaration of illegality against the company and requested criminal investigation against its officials, alongside ongoing proceedings before the Joint Labour Commissioner.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the entity is a private company, not a 'State' under Article 12, and the dispute is essentially a private service contractual conflict. It further determined that the petitioner is currently pursuing remedies via the Labour Commissioner, rendering the writ petition inappropriate and not maintainable.
Issues: Whether a private entity providing software services to the government qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 and whether a writ petition is maintainable for a service dispute against a private employer when an alternative remedy is being pursued.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that a private company does not perform public functions merely by providing services to the government, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve private service disputes or to bypass existing statutory labor remedies.
Result: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner asserts that the corporate entity holds 'state' status due to performing public functions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. allegations of corporate misconduct and violation of fundamental rights during employment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. arguments regarding respondents' preliminary objections and maintainability of the writ. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. court rules private entities are not amenable to writ jurisdiction in employment disputes. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
“ ... to consider this controversy originating from access of school education data with Aadhar belonging to State Governments in Digital India Team promoted by 1st Respondent and led by 4th Respondent and issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the acts of 1st to 4th Respondents and Microsoft officials against petitioner illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and thereby directing 1st to 4th Respondents to follow due process and to uphold justice and dignity and employee rights denied to petitioner and directing the Good Offices of 6th to 9th Respondents to take cognizance of the criminal actions of 1st to 4th Respondents and Microsoft officials and hold said persons accountable for their criminal deeds and take necessary criminal action against above said persons and to pass ...”
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as permanent, full-time role (‘Blue Badge’ employee) in Digital India team, Cloud and Artificial Intelligence department of Microsoft India (R&D) Private Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of respondent No.1 - company and his work location was at Microsoft Campus in Building 3, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana. It is stated that petitioner worked with his heart and soul towards the mission of respondent No.1. The Digital India Team where the petitioner worked throughout his tenure at respondent No.1 - company addressed problems in healthcare, school education, agriculture, skilling, Aadhar among others and was regularly taking over work traditionally done by Government departments and officials, in other words, “transferring a department of Government to itself” which is another benchmark classifying Digital India Team as ‘State’.
3. It is submitted that Microsoft Academia Accelerator where the petitioner travelled frequently representing respondent No.1 - company received appreciation from respondent No.4, who was providing valuable practical software development skills for higher education students in Indian Institutes of Technology and also discharging the functions of the ‘State’. It is submitted that the controversial projects where respondent Nos.1 to 4 violated petitioner’s fundamental rights are to improve school grades, academic performance, increase school enrolment, and reduce school dropouts among others. These projects are addressing Right to Education under Article 21A which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Though, these projects are within the exclusive purview of the Government Departments, they were run by platforms of respondent No.4 and decisions were made for State Government Officials using Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (for short ‘AI & ML’) and used by State Project Directors and their reportees from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and also heads of State Governments. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he sacrificed his personal life, weekends and health on many occasions to achieve remarkable results in Digital India projects and other initiatives of respondent No.1, in short time. The petitioner stretched his limits an
