Private Job Firings Stay Out of Writ Court Reach: Rajasthan HC Draws Line on Public Duty vs. Private Contracts

In a crisp ruling that reinforces boundaries between public accountability and private employment disputes, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition filed by former employee Atal Khandelwal against the Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR) . Justice Praveer Bhatnagar held on February 17, 2026 , that termination from a private society—even one performing public health functions—lacks the " public law element " needed for High Court intervention under Article 226 . The decision, cited as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 73 , echoes recent Supreme Court guidance, shutting the door on similar service challenges.

From Termination Notice to High Court Doors

Atal Khandelwal, residing in Jaipur's Muktanand Nagar, saw his services severed by IIHMR on July 19, 2008 . The institute, a registered society focused on public health management and policy at Sanganer near Jaipur's airport, faced the petition seeking reinstatement with full benefits. Khandelwal's counsel, Ishaan Khandelwal , argued the writ's maintainability , while respondents, represented by Rachit Sharma , raised a preliminary objection.

The core flashpoint: Does IIHMR qualify as "State" under Article 12 due to its public-oriented work, opening writ doors for employee grievances?

Petitioner's Push: Public Health Means Public Oversight

Khandelwal's team painted IIHMR as a public functionary in health policy, akin to "other authority" under Article 12 . They stressed Article 226 's expansive scope—not just fundamental rights, but "any other purpose"—and cited Supreme Court landmarks:

  • Andi Mukta Sadguru... v. V.R. Rudani (1989): Writs against non-state bodies discharging public duties.
  • Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015): Universities performing public functions amenable to writs.
  • Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003): Broadening writ horizons.

The pitch: Public health work demands judicial scrutiny of rights violations.

Respondents' Block: Society Rules, Not State Control

IIHMR countered fiercely: As a Societies Registration Act entity, it's no statutory "State" sans government control, per Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013). Employment spats belong in civil courts, not constitutional writs. Private contracts don't magically gain public sheen.

Court's Sharp Scalpel: Public Duty ≠ Employment Writs

Justice Bhatnagar cut through, leaning on fresh Supreme Court wisdom. In Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024 INSC 501), the apex court rejected writs for teacher dismissals, noting:

“Imparting education involves public duty ... However, the relationship... is that of an employee and a private employer arising out of a private contract . If there is a breach of a covenant of a private contract , the same does not touch any public law element .”

Echoing St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023), the bench clarified:

“While a body may be discharging a public function... its employees would not have the right to invoke... Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed... by statutory provisions.”

Here, Khandelwal's termination was "essentially contractual and private," sans public law flavor. No writ maintainability .

Punchy Pronouncements from the Bench

Justice Bhatnagar's key takeaways, pulled straight from the judgment:

  1. “The lis is essentially contractual and private in nature, without any demonstrable public law element .”

  2. “The school cannot be said to be discharging any public duty in connection with the employment of the respondents.” ( Quoting Army Welfare case )

  3. “Actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service... cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 .” ( Quoting St. Mary’s case )

  4. “The present writ petition is not maintainable.”

Dismissed in Limine : Ripple Effects for Private Sector Workers

The petition was " dismissed in limine on the ground of maintainability ," with no costs. Pending applications disposed.

This verdict signals to employees at NGOs, societies, or mission-driven institutes: Public-good missions don't unlock writ courts for job losses. Head to labor forums or civil suits instead. For Rajasthan's legal circles—and beyond—it cements that employer-employee ties in non-statutory setups stay private, curbing High Court overload while upholding constitutional precision.