Writ Petition under Art 226 Against Private Unaided Institution Entertainable for Violating Natural Justice in Service Matters: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-23

Writ Petition Against Private Unaided College Entertainable for Violating Natural Justice, Holds Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant order, has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable and entertainable against a private, unaided educational institution in a service matter, especially when the institution's action is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that while a contract of personal service with a private entity is not typically enforceable through a writ, the court can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction when fundamental tenets of fairness are violated. The court was hearing a petition filed by 19 nursing tutors challenging their abrupt discharge from service.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioners were appointed as Nursing Tutors at the Kempegowda Institute of Nursing and R.V.S. College of Nursing Sciences, both managed by the Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha, in November 2024. Their appointments followed a formal selection process involving a committee that included representatives from the Directorate of Medical Education and the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS).

However, after approximately 100 days of service, the tutors were unceremoniously discharged in February 2025. The discharge orders cited large-scale illegalities and alleged that the appointments were ante-dated by a previous management committee to circumvent an interim High Court order in a separate management dispute. The petitioners, who were caught in this "management squabble," were not issued any show-cause notice before their termination.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioners' Arguments: Senior Advocate Sri H. Subramanya Jois, representing the tutors, argued that the discharge was an unceremonious and arbitrary act. He contended that the petitioners were appointed through a due process of law by a legally constituted selection committee. He stressed that the discharge orders were a mere camouflage for the internal power struggle within the Sangha's management, and the petitioners were made scapegoats.

• Respondents' Arguments: Senior Advocate Sri P. S. Rajagopal, appearing for the institutions, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He argued that the institutions were private, unaided bodies, and the dispute pertained to a private contract of personal service, which is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. He submitted that the petitioners should have pursued alternative remedies, such as a revision before the State Government under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

Court's Rationale and Legal Principles

Justice Nagaprasanna, after analyzing a plethora of judgments from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, delineated the distinction between the "maintainability" and "entertainability" of a writ petition.

The Court observed that while every petition alleging a constitutional violation is maintainable, its entertainability depends on the court's discretion. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks , the Court highlighted exceptions where an alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition, one of which is the violation of principles of natural justice.

"The orders of discharge admittedly have come to these petitioners as a bolt from the blue. They are not even issued notice seeking as to why they should not be discharged from service... The admitted fact is that discharge orders are issued in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners cannot be shown the doors of this Court holding that the writ petition of contract service is not maintainable."

The judgment further noted that the appointments, though contractual, had a "statutory flavour." The qualifications for the post of Nursing Tutor are prescribed by a central statute (the Indian Nursing Council Act), and the selection committee included nominees from the state government and the university.

"Though the contract of service happens between the petitioners and the institutions, it is not that the institutions do have a free hand to appoint any person as a tutor, it has to be in terms of the statute. It is therefore, though the appointment is done by the respondent/institution run by the Sangha, it has a statutory flavour."

The Court lamented the tutors' predicament, stating they were caught in the cross-fire of a management dispute and could not be treated as "chattels" to be hired and fired at will.

Final Decision

The Court concluded that the writ petition was both maintainable and entertainable and must be heard on its merits. Rejecting the respondents' preliminary objection, Justice Nagaprasanna held that the blatant violation of natural justice warranted the exercise of the Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The matter has been listed for a final hearing on the merits of the discharge orders. This ruling reinforces the principle that private bodies performing functions imbued with a public character and statutory flavour cannot act arbitrarily, especially when their actions have severe consequences for their employees.