Karnataka High Court
Dr. Jyothi M R vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 30750 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 24786 OF 2024 (S-TR)
WRIT PETITION NO. 25511 OF 2024 (S-TR)
WRIT PETITION NO. 30739 OF 2024 (S-RES)
IN W.P.NO.30750/2024:
BETWEEN:
DR. JYOTHI M.R. D/O. RAMU,
AGED 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,
RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING,
MSRIT POST, BENGALURU-560 054,
R/AT NO.44, FLAT NO.201,
MSNR GRAND, 1ST CROSS,
MANORAYANA PALYA, R.T. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 032.
Digitally
signed by ...PETITIONER
SUMA
(BY SRI. S.Y.RODAGI, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
3. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
JNANA SANGAMA, VTU MAIN ROAD,
VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
MACCHE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA - 590018.
4. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110070.
5. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
1, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560001.
6. THE PRINCIPAL,
M.S.RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
MSR NAGAR, MSRIT POST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560054.
7. THE SECRETARY,
M.S. RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
MSR NAGAR, MSRIT POST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560054.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK G.V., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT
NO.6 AND 7;
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 5;
SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;
SRI. SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.11.2024
BEARING REF NO. MSRIT/ADMIN/1300/24-25 ISSUED BY THE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
RESPONDENT NO.6 VIDE ANNEXURE-L PERUSE AND QUASH THE
SAID TERMINATION ORDER OF THE PETITIONER AND AS ILLEGAL
ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16(1) AND 311 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO TERMINATE THE
PETITIONER AND CONTINUE HER IN SERVICE AS ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN THE CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IN
M.S.RAMAIAH, TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, BENGALURU TO RELEASE
THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.24786/2024:
BETWEEN:
DR. JYOTHI M.R. D/O. RAMU,
AGED 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,
RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING,
MSRIT POST, BENGALURU-560 054,
R/AT NO.44, FLAT NO.201,
MSNR GRAND, 1ST CROSS,
MANORAYANA PALYA,
R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S.JOIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.
2. VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
JNANA SNGAMA, VTU MAIN ROAD,
MACCHE, BELAGAVI - 590018.
3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI - 110 070
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
4. THE SECRETARY
GOKUL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
P.B. NO.5405, GATE NO.3,
BEHIND MSR UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCE,
M.S. RAMAIAH NAGAR, MSRIT POST,
BENGALURU - 560054.
5. THE PRINCIPAL
M.S.RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
MSRIT POST, MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU - 560054.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. SANTOSH S.NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
SRI. ASHOK G.V., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.5
AND RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.
MSRIT/ADMIN/654/24-25 DATED 23.07.2024 PASSED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND NO.MSRIT/ADMIN/809/24-25
DATED 26.08.2024 ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
VIDE ANNEXURE-J, PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDERS AS
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, MALAFIDE AND IN VIOLATION OF CADRE AND
RECRUITMENT RULES AND AICTE RULES AS ALSO THE RELEVANT
GOVERNMENT ORDERS AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 TO CONTINUE
THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
THE DEPARTMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING AT RAMAIAH, INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, BENGALURU AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.25511/2024:
BETWEEN:
DR. H.U. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. H.A. UTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
WORKING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
M.S. RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
BENGALURU - 560054,
R/AT: C/O. H.A.UTHAPPA,
NO.162/1, SUVARNANAGAR,
DODDABIDARAKALLU LAYOUT,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU - 560073.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S.JOIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560001.
2. VISVESWARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
JNANA SANGAMA, VTU MAIN ROAD,
MACCHE BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA - 590018.
3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI-110070.
4. THE SECRETARY
M.S. RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
MSR NAGAR, MSRIT POST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560054.
5. THE PRINCIPAL
M.S. RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
MSR NAGAR, MSRIT POST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560054.
...RESPONDENTS
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(BY SRI. S.V.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT
NO.4;
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. H.R.SHOURI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER
BEARING NO. MSRIT/ADMIN/1003/24-25 DATED 04.09.2024 PASSED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F, PERUSE AND QUASH
THE SAID ORDERS AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, MALAFIDE AND IN
VIOLATION OF CADRE AND RECRUITMENT RULES AND AICTE RULES
AS ALSO THE RELEVANT GOVERNMENT ORDERS ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND
5 TO CONTINUE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT CIVIL ENGINEERING AT
M.S.RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BENGALURU AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.30739/2024:
BETWEEN:
DR. H.U. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O H.A. UTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
WORKING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
M.S.RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
BENGALURU-560054,
R/AT. C/O. H.A. UTHAPPA,
NO.162/1, SUVARNANAGAR,
DODDABIDARAKALLU LAYOUT,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU-560073
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Y.S.RODAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001.
3. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
JNANA SANGAMA, VTU MAIN ROAD,
VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
MACCHE, BELGAUM, KARNATAKA - 590018.
4. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110070.
5. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
1, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560001.
6. THE PRINCIPAL
M.S.RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
MSR NAGAR, MSRIT POST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560054.
7. THE SECRETARY,
M.S. RAMAIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
MSR NAGAR, MSRIT POST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560054.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK G.V., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT
NO.7 AND RESPONDENT NO.6;
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 5;
SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;
SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.11.2024
BEARING NO. MSRIT/ADMIN/1301/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 VIDE ANNEXURE-L, PERUSE AND QUASH THE
SAID TERMINATION ORDER OF THE PETITIONER AND AS ILLEGAL,
ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16(1) AND 311 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO TERMINATE THE
PETITIONER AND CONTINUE HER IN SERVICE AS ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN THE CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IN
M.S.RAMAIAH, TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, BENGALURU TO RELEASE
THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 04.04.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CAV ORDER
Writ Petition No.30750/2024 is filed challenging an order
bearing No.MSRIT/Admin/1300/24-25 dated 11.11.2024 issued
by respondent No.6 and declare that the said order is illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 311 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought for a writ
in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to
terminate her and continue her in service as Assistant Professor
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
in Civil Engineering Department at M.S.Ramaiah Institute of
Technology, Bengaluru and to release the consequential
benefits.
2. Writ Petition No.24786/2024 is filed challenging
an order bearing No.MSRIT/Admin/654/24-25 dated
23.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.5 and the order
bearing No.MSRIT/Admin/809/24-25 dated 26.08.2024 issued
by the respondent No.5 as arbitrary, illegal, malafide and in
violation of cadre and recruitment rules and All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE) rules as well as relevant
Government orders. She has also sought for a writ in the
nature of mandamus to direct the respondents No.4 and 5 to
continue her service as Assistant Professor in the Department
of Civil Engineering at M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology,
Bengaluru.
3. Writ Petition No.25511/2024 is filed challenging
an order bearing No.MSRIT/Admin/1003/24-25 dated
04.09.2024 issued by respondent No.5 as arbitrary, illegal,
malafide and in violation of the cadre and recruitment rules and
AICTE rules as well as relevant Government orders. He has also
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
sought for writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondents No.4 and 5 to continue his service as Assistant
Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at
M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bengaluru.
4. Writ Petition No.30739/2024 is filed challenging
order bearing No.MSRIT/Admin/1301/24-25 dated 11.11.2024
issued by respondent No.6 and to quash the order of
termination as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,
16(1) and 311 of the Constitution of India. He has sought for a
writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents not
to terminate him and continue him in service as an Assistant
Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at
M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bengaluru and to release
the consequential benefits.
5. (i) Both the petitioners were Assistant Professors
on permanent basis in Department of Civil Engineering at
M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bengaluru. The petitioner
in the first two writ petitions claimed that she belonged to
scheduled caste and joined services at M.S.Ramaiah Institute of
Technology (hereinafter referred to as 'MSRIT') on 14.09.2010
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
and her probationary period was declared. She claimed that her
basic pay scale was reduced arbitrarily and therefore she
approached this Court in Writ Petition No.22607/2022. The
institute was directed to continue the salary that was paid
during November, 2020. In the meanwhile, AICTE norms were
notified as per the notification dated 01.03.2019. The petitioner
had become the permanent employee of the institute in the
department of civil engineering. Nonetheless, the MSRIT
transferred her to the department of architecture on
23.07.2024 on the ground that she would be regarded as
"excess staff" due to drop in student-teacher ratio. The
petitioner contends that she was in no way equipped to teach in
the department of Architecture for which separate qualified
lecturers were available. She contends that every department
including the department of Architecture is required by law to
have qualified staff and that her post was non-transferable. She
contends that she was not eligible or obliged to teach in the
department of architecture. She contends that this violates the
norms prescribed by the AICTE. She contends that as per the
cadre and recruitment rules of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and
the norms prescribed by AICTE, the post of the Assistant
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Professor had to be filled up by a qualified person in the same
discipline i.e. Architecture. Being aggrieved by the said order of
transfer, she submitted a detailed representation dated
25.07.2024 followed by another representation dated
29.07.2024 to MSRIT. However, her claim was rejected on the
ground that the management of the institute had discretion to
re-depute excess faculty. The petitioner therefore contends that
this order of transferring her to the department of Architecture
was not in accordance with the Cadre & Recruitment rules and
also the byelaws of the institute. The petitioner is therefore
before this Court challenging the said endorsement.
(ii) This Court passed an interim order on 11.09.2024
directing the institute not to give effect to the order of transfer
till the next date of hearing. This order was extended from time
to time. On 01.10.2024 this Court preserved the options
available to MSRIT. It appears that, following the above, the
MSRIT terminated the services of the petitioner in terms of the
order dated 11.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order of
the termination, W.P.No.30750/2024 is filed.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
6. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.25511/2024
was transferred from the department of Civil Engineering to the
department of Physics vide order dated 04.09.2024 which is
challenged and thereafter MSRIT terminated the services of the
petitioner in terms of an order dated 01.10.2024, which is
challenged in W.P.No.30739/2024.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that, in both set of petitions they were appointed in the
department of civil engineering and therefore could not have
been transferred to the department of Architecture or Physics
respectively, on the ground that they were excess faculty. He
contends that if the petitioners were excess, then the junior-
most incumbent faculty must have been moved out and not the
petitioners. He also contends that the petitioners have put in
more than 15 years and 10 years of service respectively and
they are being compelled to teach subjects which they are not
proficient in. He therefore, contends that such
interdepartmental transfers are violative of the AICTE norms
and consequently the institute is liable to hauled up and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
appropriate directions be issued to restore the services of the
petitioners and also pay all arrears of salary, etc.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of
the contention that the writ petitions are maintainable even
against a private unaided institution has relied upon the
following judgments:
(i) Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs. Asha Srivastava and
Others in Civil Appeal No.9166/2013
(ii) Dr.Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University and Others
reported in AIR 2016 SC 73
(iii) Dr.Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. KIIT University and
others in W.P.(C) No.17171/2011
(iv) Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing
Corporation & Another vs. Vinay Narayan
Vajpayee reported in AIR 1980 SC 840
(v) C/M Pratibha Inter College, Barabanki Thru.
Manager Sri Indra Kumar and Another vs. State
of U.P. (Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC-
LKO:45575-DB) (Special Appeal No.115/2024 of
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
(vi) Roychan Abraham vs. State of UP and Others
reported in AIR 2019 Allahabad 96
(vii) Unni Krishnan J.P. and Others vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh And Others reported in 1993 AIR 2178
(viii) Binny Ltd. & Another vs. V.Sadasivan & Others
reported in AIR 2005 SC 3202
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(ix) Vidyavardhaka Sangha and Another vs. S.K.Joshi
and Others 2005 (5) KARLJ 402
(x) Dr. Ashwani Kumar Kala vs. School Management
of Hira Lal Jain Senior and Another (Neutral
Citation No.2023:DHC:4187) (W.P.(C)
13859/2018 of High Court of Delhi)
9. (i) The petitions are opposed by the learned
counsel for MSRIT who have filed a detailed statement of
objections. They have contended that the writ petition is not
maintainable as MSRIT is a private unaided autonomous
education institution which is affiliated to the Visvesvaraya
Technological University (VTU) constituted under the
Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 (for short 'VTU
Act, 1994'). They contend that under the UGC (Conferment of
Autonomous Status Upon Colleges and Measures for
Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges)
Regulations, 2023, the institution enjoys autonomy, virtually in
all aspects of its management except the issue concerning
minimal qualification of teaching staff, if the rules do not
prescribe any mandatory service condition to be followed or
implemented. They contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V.Jeyaraj and Ors.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
[(2015) 6 SCC 363] held that UGC regulations would be binding
only on central universities, colleges thereunder and institutions
which are deemed to be universities and those universities
whose expenditure is met by UGC. The Hon'ble Apex Court held
that the institution appearing before was it private,
autonomous and unaided, it has no statutory obligation to
adopt service conditions prescribed, if any, by UGC or
otherwise. Respondents also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Association of
Management of Private Colleges vs. All India Council for
Technical Education and Others [(2013) 8 SCC 271]
regarding the contours of power of AICTE to regulate technical
institutions affiliated to the universities such as VTU, where it
was held as follows:
"A careful scanning of the provisions of the AICTE Act
and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition will
show that the role of AICTE vis-a-vis the universities is
only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and
thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate
standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority
empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself
except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action."
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(ii) They contend that the Bombay High Court in the
case of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society vs. Dr.Mir
Sadique Ali in W.P.No.5944/2022 held that the age of
superannuation prescribed by AICTE is not binding on the
private institutions. They contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court
concluded that All India Council for Technical Education Act,
1987 (for short 'AICTE Act, 1987') does not intend to be an
authority either 'superior to' or to 'supervise' or 'control' the
universities and thereby superimpose itself upon the
universities merely for the reason that it is laying down certain
teaching standards in technical education or programs
formulated in any of the departments or units. Consequently,
the respondents contend that AICTE norms relied upon by the
petitioners in the above cases would also not be applicable or
bind a private unaided autonomous institution such as the
institution in the present case. It is contended that MSRIT had
taken a similar stand in W.P.No.106179/2018 stating that
AICTE norms pertaining to service conditions are not
automatically binding but are subject to voluntary adoption by
the management of the institution. Further, they contend that
as per Entry 66 of List No.1 to the Constitution of India, the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
power of the Union Government is limited to co-ordination and
determination of the standards and does not give the Union,
the powers to usurp the authority of the management of a
private unaided institution in formulating conditions of services
to its employees. They have relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brahmao Samaj Education
Society vs. State of West Bengal [(2004) 6 SCC 224], where
it was held that even aided institutions are subject to minimal
control of the State. Even with regard to matters of prescription
of minimum qualification of teaching staff. Thus, under the
guise of aid, the State cannot take over day to day
management of private institutions whether aided or unaided.
They contend that the grievances of the petitioners, if any, in
the above set of cases falls under realm of private law and
hence the writ petitions before this Court are not maintainable.
In support of this, reliance is also placed upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Army Welfare
Education Society, New Delhi vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma
and Others in C.A.No.7256-7259/2024 as well as in the
case of St. Mary's Education Society and Ors. vs. Rajendra
Prasad Bharghava [2022 SCC Online SC 1091]. They further
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
contend that as per the case of petitioners, the service
conditions are dealt with under the AICTE Act, 1987. Therefore,
even as per the case of the petitioners the Karnataka Education
Act, 1983 (for short, 'Act, 1983') has no application in view of
the express language contained in Section 1(3)(iv) of the Act,
1983. He therefore contends that there is no requirement of
taking permission of any authority under the Act, 1983 before
retrenching or terminating the services of the petitioners. He
further contends that as per Section 54 of the VTU Act, 1994, it
prevails over all other enactments concerning matters
enumerated in List-II of VII Schedule to the Constitution of
India. Under Section 8(7) of VTU Act, 1994, VTU has the
function of laying down the terms and conditions of teaching
faculty and employees of the constituent colleges. Under sub-
Section 10 of Section 8 of VTU Act, 1994, VTU has the function
to promote institutional autonomy to enable constituent
colleges to grow. Thus, it is VTU Act, 1994 alone which would
be relevant to determine the controversies related to the
service conditions of the petitioners. He contends that as the
institute has not violated any of the provisions of the VTU Act,
1994 or the norms of the VTU while terminating the services of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
the petitioners, the reliance placed by the petitioners on the
provisions of the Act, 1983 is not tenable. He contends that
although 'assuming' but not 'admitting' that in the event, the
provisions of the Act, 1983 is applicable, the petitioners have
alternate remedy for an appeal before the Education Appellate
Tribunal.
10. Coming to the merits of the case, it is contended
that there was a drop in workload due to reduced teacher-
student ratio. In such a situation, as per the employment
contract executed by the petitioners in favour of MSRIT confer
upon it the power to retrench employees whenever there is a
drop in the workload. Respondents contend that as per the
terms and conditions of the service, they are required to
provide one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof
and since this contract is binding on the petitioners, they have
no right to challenge their termination. Therefore, they contend
that the petitioners cannot raise any grievance against their
termination.
11. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the
statement of objection inter alia contending that all institutions
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
imparting engineering courses in the State Government have
accepted AICTE regulations and therefore, the institute is
governed by the statutes of VTU which applies to both private
autonomous and aided engineering colleges. Therefore, all
regulations notified by AICTE, UGC and the State Government
from time to time have to be followed by MSRIT. They have
refuted the claim of the respondents that UGC regulations are
not applicable. They contend that the order of appointment
makes reference to their pay scale being in accordance with
AICTE scale and that the appointment shall be in consonance
with the AICTE norms. They have also contended that a careful
reading of Section 1(3)(iv) of the Act, 1983 makes it evident
that if the matters are covered by the enactments referred in
Section (a) to (f) then the Act, 1983 may not apply. They
contend that in the instant case MSRIT has not adopted the
conditions of service prescribed by the AICTE. They contend
that AICTE has power to prescribe qualification and other
service conditions. They contend that under Section 87 of the
Act, 1983, the State Government is empowered to make rules
regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the
employees of recognized private education institutions except
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
minimum qualifications and retirement benefits for employees
in educational institutions receiving grants. They contend that
what is questioned in the present writ petitions is not regarding
qualification for recruitment or retirement benefits but is the
arbitrary termination without enquiry as prescribed under
Section 92 of the Act, 1983. They contend that even if it is a
case of reduction of the workload, as a matter of condition of
service, it has to be governed under the Act. Therefore, it is
contended that MSRIT cannot claim that it is private institution
and it is not governed by the AICTE Act, 1987 or Act, 1983.
Further, it contends that the reduction in the teacher-student
ratio cannot automatically result in termination of a teacher, as
approval of the Government or AICTE is required before taking
any action. They contend that there is sufficient requirement of
faculty and hence, the petitioners have been victimized and
have been subjected to discriminatory treatment by retaining
juniors in the institute. In support of this, they have relied upon
the judgment in Manager, Government Branch Press and
another vs. D.B. Belliappa [AIR 1979 SC 429]. They further
contend that when they are recruited according to AICTE
regulations, the MSRIT cannot claim that the regulations are
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
not applicable when it comes to the matters of termination.
Besides this, they contend that since the termination of the
petitioners is in violation of Sections 97 and 98 of the Act, 1983
as it was done without enquiry and in violation of principles of
natural justice, which is highly arbitrary and illegal, this Court
can exercise jurisdiction to restore the status quo ante.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the
above contentions and submitted that a writ petition is
maintainable even against the private entity in respect of the
service matters if the service conditions are backed by
statutory provisions. He contends that as per the AICTE
guidelines, every department in an engineering college is bound
to have adequate staff who have requisite qualification. He
contends that there is no provision for reducing the staff in one
department and transferring them to the other department.
Further, he contends that even as per the service regulations of
MSRIT, there is no provision for interdepartmental transfers
and hence, the order of transfer was masked with an intent to
victimize the petitioners to compel them to submit their
resignations and leave their organization. This particular act, he
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
contends is an unfair treatment meted out to the petitioners
and this Court is bound to intervene and render justice to the
petitioners who have taken on a mighty institution. He further
contends that the reason for transferring the petitioners from
one department to another was the reduction in the teacher-
student ratio. He has referred to the notice issued by the
AICTE which has reduced the teacher-student ratio and had
directed institutions not to remove the staff in event there was
a reduction in the ratio and contends that MSRIT has not
followed the said notice dated 11.07.2018. Besides this, he
contends that if there was a reduction in teacher-student ratio
then there was no need to issue a fresh publication dated
15.01.2015 inviting applications to the post of Assistant
Professor in the department of Civil Engineering. He further
contends that even if the respondent-Institute was entitled to
transfer the teachers to other departments on the ground that
there was excess staff, then the junior most in the department
had to be moved out. He contends that the petitioners were
senior lecturers who have put in many years of service and
sending them to a different department to teach subject which
is not their area of expertise, making a mockery of the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
academic excellence of the petitioners and ridiculing them. He
therefore contends that the order of transfer of the petitioners
is liable to be interfered with. He also contends that the
petitioners have been unlawfully retrenched without following
the due process of law as prescribed under Section 98 of the
Act, 1983. Therefore, he contends that the impugned orders of
termination of the petitioners are liable to be set aside.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for MSRIT
submitted that the petitioners are governed by a set of service
regulations apart from the terms and conditions of
appointment. He submits that the petitioners were excess staff
in the department of Civil Engineering and since they were
proficient in subjects which were taught in the department of
architecture and department of physics, they were transferred
to those departments since dept of physics & architecture
contain subjects which the petitioners were proficient in. In
support of this, he has placed on record, the subjects taught by
the petitioners in the department of Civil Engineering and
contends that the petitioners not put to any discomfort in
teaching those subjects. In order to buttress this contention,
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
the learned counsel has relied upon a notification issued by
AICTE dated 28.04.2017, titled "Major/Core Branches of
Engineering/Technology and their Relevant/Appropriate
Courses Leading to Degree in Engineering/Technology for
Recruitment to Teaching Positions." which indicates the
subjects offered in the department of Architecture and Physics.
He submits that the petitioners cannot maintain a writ petition
challenging inter departmental transfers as there is no
prohibition in any law which bars MSRIT from transferring its
employees from one department to another. He submitted that
there are no AICTE guidelines to this effect but the issue in
present case arises out of the contract of service and therefore
a writ petition is not maintainable. In support of this
contention, he relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of St. Mary's Education Society and Another Vs.
Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others - 2023 (4) SCC
498. He further contends that the petitioners have been
terminated without any allegation and therefore, if they are
aggrieved by the said order, they are bound to approach the
Tribunal as provided under Section 94 of the Act, 1983,
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
assuming that the Act is applicable. In support of this
contention, he relied upon the following judgments:
(i) St. Joseph's Higher Primary School Vs. Smt. J. Rose
Mary & Ors. - ILR 1998 KAR 2366;
(ii) Ahtashmuddin Vs. Vocational Education Society and
Another - (2004) 13 SCC 753;
(iii) Management of M.S.Ramaiah Medical College and
Hospital Vs. Dr. M.Somashekar - ILR 2004 KAR 37.
He therefore contends that the petitioners cannot assail
the order of termination before this Court.
14. He further contends that MSRIT is neither a State
nor an instrumentality of State and the employees of MSRIT are
therefore not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of
violation of their service conditions. In support of this, he relied
upon following the judgments:
(i) St. Marys Education Society and Ors. - 2023 (4)
SCC 498;
(ii) Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi Vs.
Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Etc. - Civil Appeal
Nos.7256-7259/2024;
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(iii) Satimbla Sharma and others Vs. St Paul's Senior
Secondary School and Others - (2011) 13 SCC
760;
(iv) Sushmita Basu and others Vs. Ballygunge Siksha
Samity and others - (2006) 7 SCC 680.
15. He contends that AICTE rules, regulations
notifications are not binding upon a private autonomous
education institution and in support of this contention, he relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All
India Council for Technical Education Vs. Sri Prince
Shivaji Maratha Boarding House's College of Architecture
and Ors. - Civil Appeal No.364/2005. He also relied upon
the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.100209/2021 and
connected matters, W.P.No.100198/2022 C/W
W.P.No.101937/2022 and in W.P.No.106179/2018 and
connected matters. He contends that UGC guidelines were
not applicable to MSRIT. In support of this contention, he
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V.Jeyaraj and others -
(2015) 6 SCC 363. He has also relied upon the judgment of
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dr. Jyoti Rani
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Vs. Board of Governors, Thapar Institute of Engineering
& Technology, Patiala, through its Chairman and others -
C.W.P. No.16610/2018 (O&M). He has also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in W.P.No.10638/2021 C/W
W.P.No.10628/2021 and a judgment of High Court of
Bombay in the case of Suresh Patikhede of Thane, Adult
Indian Inhabitant Vs. Chancellor Universities of
Maharashtra having its office and Others - 2012 SCC
OnLine Bom 2005.
16. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent-
Institute.
17. The contentions urged by the petitioners and MSRIT
throws up two questions for consideration of this Court namely,
(i) Whether the employees of a private
autonomous educational institution can
approach this Court challenging their
inter-departmental transfer?
(ii) Whether such employees can approach
this Court seeking appropriate writ
against the private educational
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
institution to comply with certain
protections given to them under a
statute before they are terminated from
service?
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary's
Education Society and another Vs. Rajendra Prasad
Bhargava and others [(2022 SCC Online SC 1991] and
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka
and others [(2002) 8 SCC 481] and Unni Krishnan, J.P. and
others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [(1993) 1
SCC 645], held that imparting education is a State activity and
a private institution imparting such education is deemed to be
carrying on a public activity.
19. In the instant case, though MSRIT is a private
autonomous institution, yet it is conducting a public activity,
which is circumscribed by various statutes and is under the
watchful eyes of various statutory authorities. Therefore, there
is an element of public interest in the activities of MSRIT and
hence, a writ petition against it is maintainable in respect of
those matters, which are prescribed or proscribed under any
statutes. However, this does not mean that all issues of
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
employees of such institutions is open to scrutiny by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the service
conditions of such employees are governed or backed by some
statutory provision.
20. In order to answer the first question, it is
appropriate to refer to the letter of appointment of the
petitioners. Clause 6 reads as follows:
"You will be working under the directions and to
the satisfaction of the superiors in all activities of
the institution."
21. Clause 8 reads as follows:
"You shall comply with the norms of AICTE and
the norms of this institution regarding your
professional duties."
22. There is apparently no clause in the letter of
appointment which enables MSRIT to transfer the petitioners
from one department to the other. The service rules for the
employees of Gokula Educational Foundation which is placed on
record by the learned counsel for the petitioners, also does not
provide for transfer of teaching staff from one department to
the other. Let us now examine whether any statutory or
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
regulatory authorities have prescribed any conditions of service
enabling a private autonomous educational institute to transfer
its employees from one department to the other.
23. MSRIT was granted approval to establish a technical
institution under the AICTE (Grant of approvals for Technical
Education) Regulations, 2016, which mandates that sufficient
number of qualified teaching staff are recruited in each
department. These Regulations does not enable any institution
to transfer a teaching staff from one department to the other to
maintain the strength in that department. There is also no
provision in the AICTE Act, 1987 enabling the transfer of staff
from one department to the other. The AICTE has issued
regulations known as the AICTE (Pay Scales, Service Conditions
and Minimum Qualification for the Appointment of Teachers and
Other Academic Staffs such as Library, Physical Education and
Training and Placement, Personnel in Technical Institutions and
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical
Education - (Degree)) Regulations, 2019, which prescribe pay,
pay fixation, increment, annual process of promotion,
superannuation, pension, gratuity, minimum qualifications for
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
recruitment, cadre structure etc., These regulations do not
provide or permit an institution to transfer teaching staff from
department to the other.
24. MSRIT claims that its autonomy is assured under
the VTU Act, 1994 and therefore it could depute its staff from
department to the other for efficient use of resources. It also
contends under the UGC (Conferment of Autonomous Status
Upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in
Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023, it enjoys autonomy
in all aspects of management.
25. In order to appreciate the above, it is appropriate to
refer to certain provisions of the VTU Act, 1994 concerning
service conditions of the employees of the constituent colleges.
Sub-section (7) of Section 8 provides for "laying down terms
and conditions of service of teaching faculty and other
employees of the university and constituent colleges."
26. Section 19 of the VTU Act, 1994 contemplates the
constitution of an executive Council and the powers of such
executive council is provided under Section 20 of the VTU Act,
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
1994. Section 20(q) of the VTU Act, 1994 provides that the
executive council shall prescribe terms and conditions of the
service of the teaching faculty and other employees of the
constituent college.
27. Under Section 43A, the VTU with the permission of
the State Government may designate any affiliated college or
department or units as an autonomous college. Such
autonomous colleges are entitled to design the course of study,
devise methods of evaluation, examination and test pertaining
to the award of degree or diploma by the university.
28. Therefore, the autonomy that MSRIT enjoys does
not extend to defining its own terms and conditions of service
of teaching and other employees but is overarched by the
terms and conditions as prescribed by the university. As a
matter of fact, VTU has adopted AICTE (Pay Scales, Service
Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Degree)) Regulations,
2010, as well as the subsequent clarifications by notification
dated 04.01.2016 and 28.04.2017. A perusal of the
Regulation, 2010 shows that it deals with only the pay scale of
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
teaching and non-teaching staff, incentives, increments,
allowances, leave, promotion, age of superannuation, pension,
family pension, PF etc., It does not deal with disciplinary
proceedings against the teaching and non-teaching staff of the
employees of an affiliated institution or power to transfer its
staff or employees.
29. Therefore, the contention of MSRIT that it being an
autonomous institution is entitled to deal with its staff without
following the due process, is not justified. There are also no
regulations framed by UGC or AICTE enabling the private
autonomous educational institution to treat the teachers at its
will. Therefore, it can conclusively be held that there are no
regulations framed either by VTU or AICTE enabling MSRIT to
transfer much less on the ground that the petitioners were
excess staff in the department of civil engineering.
30. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the
petitioners have placed on record a Circular dated 11.07.2018
by which AICTE reduced the student-teacher ratio and
cautioned the management of the private educational
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
institution not to retrench the excess teaching staff in view of
the reduction in the student-teacher ratio.
31. The claim of MSRIT that it is entitled to autonomy
under the Regulations, 2023 is also of no consequence as the
autonomy does not extend to determine its own conditions of
service to its employees but such autonomy is restricted to
prescribing rules for admission in consonance with the
reservation policy and fixing fees as per the norms of the State
Government, constitute governing body, academic council,
finance committee and board of studies, formulating new
courses as specified by UGC, evolving methods of assessment,
conducting examination and notifying the results. The teaching
staff and principal in all autonomous colleges are to be
appointed by the institution as per the UGC (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic
Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher education) Regulations,
2018. Therefore, the contention of MSRIT that it enjoys
autonomy is though not disputable but it does not extend to
determining the conditions of service of its employees.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
32. With the above preface, if we consider the case on
hand, the petitioners were Assistant professors in MSRIT in the
Department of Civil Engineering. They were transferred to the
Department of Architecture and Department of Physics on the
ground that they were excess staff. The contention of the
petitioners is that they could not have been transferred to the
Department of Architecture and Physics. Assuming that the
petitioners have a grievance and that their transfer is not in
accordance with law, the only remedy available to them is to
approach the grievance redressal committee as prescribed
under the AICTE (Redressal of Grievance of Faculty/Staff
Member) Regulations, 2021. He/she may also approach the
AICTE in view of the Circular dated 11.07.2018, referred supra,
against their inter-departmental transfer. This however, does
not cloth them with a right to approach this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, as the transfer arises out of a
contract of personal service and it is well settled that such
contracts of personal service cannot be enforced by resorting to
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above,
the remedy available to the petitioners to challenge their
transfer is to either escalate their grievance before the
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Grievance Rederssal Committee or before AICTE or before the
UGC challenging the transfer from one department to the other.
Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners
cannot approach this Court challenging their transfer from one
department to the other.
33. In so far as the second question is concerned, in
view of Section 1(3)(iv) of the Act, 1983, the provisions of the
Act, 1983 are not applicable to institutions in so far as it relates
to matters which are specified in the AICTE Act, 1987. A
perusal of AICTE Act, 1987 shows that it only deals with
granting affiliation, recognition, fixing curriculum, determining
minimum standards of education, qualification of teaching, staff
etc,. but does not deal with service conditions of a private
educational institution particularly in matters relating to
disciplinary action against its employees or relating to
termination of its employees. Therefore, it goes without saying
that in respect of all other matters which are not governed
under the AICTE Act, 1987, the provisions of the Act, 1983 are
applicable. This also the judgment of the Division Bench of this
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Court in Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital vs.
Dr. Sanjay Murgod in Writ Appeal No.580/2023.
34. Under Section 92 of the Act, 1983 the procedure for
termination of employees of the private institution for alleged
misconduct is prescribed. However, there is no provision for
unilaterally terminating an employee simply on the ground that
the institution does not need them for whatever reason. The
only provision which enables the private educational institution
to terminate or retrench the service of an employee is provided
under Section 98 of the Act, 1983, which reads as follows:
"98. Retrenchment of employees.- (1) Where
retrenchment of any employee is rendered necessary by
the Governing Council or Competent Authority
consequent on any change relating to education or
course of instruction or due to any other reason, such
retrenchment may be effected with the prior approval of
the Competent Authority or the next higher authority, as
the case may be.
(2) Where any retrenchment of the member of the
teaching staff in any aided Educational Institutions is
effected, the State Government or the Competent
Authority shall, subject to prescribed rules or orders
governing the reservation in posts to Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes,
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
appoint such person to a similar post where available in
any other aided educational institution.
(3) If the management of an institution wants a
transfer of an employee to some other institution, where
there is a vacancy or if any employee of an institution,
wants a transfer or if two employees apply for mutual
transfer, the State Government may grant the request of
the institution or of the employee as the case may be."
35. Once an employee is terminated under Section 98
of the Act, 1983, the procedure as prescribed under Section 99
of the Act, 1983, has to be complied with. In so far as MSRIT
is concerned, the Competent Authority for the purposes of
Section 98 of the Act, 1983 is the Director of Technical
Education as per the notification bearing No.ED58vivida98
dated 18.10.1998 published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-
ordinary dated 18.11.1998. Therefore, if MSRIT intends to
retrench the employee/s on any good ground, they are bound
to seek prior approval of the competent authority. This
apparently is to ensure that the employees of a private
educational institution are not left at the mercy of the
institution and also to protect the employees against arbitrary
acts of termination by the institution.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Army
Welfare Education Society, New Delhi vs. Sunil Kumar
Sharma and Others in C.A.No.7256-7259/2024 referred to
its earlier judgment in the case of Janet Jeyapual v. SRM
University [(2015) 16 SCC 530], where it was held that,
"when a private body is exercising public functions even if it is
not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy, not only under
the ordinary law, but also by way of a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India". It also referred to the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Uttam Chand Rawat
v. State of UP [AIR 2021 ALL 3195], where it was held "while
a body may be discharging a public function and thus its
actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a
constitutional court, its employees would not have the right to
invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in
respect of matter relating to service where they are not
governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An
educational institution may perform myriad functions touching
various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While
such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a
'public function' or 'public duty' be undisputedly open to
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an
ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or
backing, cannot be recognized as being amenable to challenge
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the
service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory
provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary
contract of service." It then went on to hold "it is only where
the removal of an employee of non-teaching staff is regulated
by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in
contravention of law may be interfered with by the Court. But
such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not
on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty."
(underlining by Court)
37. Similarly, in the case of St. Mary's Education
Society and another, referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that "while a private unaided minority institution might be
touching the spheres of public function by performing a public
duty, its employees have no right of invoking the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
Constitution of India in respect of matters relating to service
where they are not governed or controlled by statutory
provision." The order of appointment of the petitioners shows
that MSRIT had reserved the right to terminate the services of
the petitioners by giving one month's notice or one month's
salary in lieu of notice in case where the employees are found
guilty of misconduct, indiscipline, insufficiency or any other
sufficient cause. However, the appointment order does not
provide for termination simpliciter of the employees.
38. In the instant case, though the conditions of service
of the petitioners are governed by a contract and the internal
regulations framed by MSRIT, the Act, 1983 which is applicable
to MSRIT provides safeguards against arbitrary termination of
employees of a private institution. Therefore, it can safely be
held that the termination of the services of the petitioners is in
clear violation of Sections 98 and 99 of the Act, 1983. At this
stage, it is appropriate to add a caveat that, this Court cannot
go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision taken by
MSRIT to terminate the services of the petitioners since that is
the exclusive domain of the Director of Technical Education. All
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
that this Court is concerned is whether the MSRIT who was
bound to comply with the provisions of the Act, 1983 before
terminating the petitioners, has done so or not. It is evident
that MSRIT has not taken prior approval of the Director of
Technical Education before terminating the services of the
petitioners.
39. The conduct of MSRIT seems to be to compel the
petitioners to go to a Court of law and fight out the same for
years on end, without it following the due procedure as
prescribed under Sections 98 and 99 of the Act, 1983. The case
law relied upon by the learned counsel for MSRIT that an
appeal under Section 94 of the Act, 1983 should be availed by
the petitioners, clearly suggests the above. If only MSRIT
sought prior approval from the Director of Technical Education,
the petitioners would have had a forum where they could seek
redressal of their grievances regarding the unilateral
termination/victimization, etc., The Director of Technical
Education after hearing petitioners and MSRIT, may or may not
grant approval to retrench the petitioners in which event the
petitioners and MSRIT would be entitled to further assail the
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
decision in a competent Court of law. Therefore, the impugned
orders of termination of the petitioners by MSRIT, being in
violation of Sections 98 and 99 of the Act, 1983 are liable to be
set aside. Therefore, the second question is answered and it is
held that wherever service conditions of the employees of a
private educational institution is protected under statute, a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable.
40. In view of the above, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition Nos.24786/2024 and 25511/2024 filed by the petitioners do not survive a consideration in view of their termination from service. However, they are at liberty to escalate their grievance before the AICTE or the Grievance Redressal Committee, if constituted by MSRIT.
(ii) Writ Petition Nos.30750/2024 and 30739/2024 are allowed and the orders of termination of the petitioners are set aside.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29328
WP No. 30750 of 2024
C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024
WP No. 25511 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
(iii) MSRIT is directed to reinstate the
petitioners into service and if it desires to terminate or retrench the petitioners, it shall follow the due process as prescribed under Sections 98 and 99 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. In that event, the Director of Technical Education shall hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.
(iv) It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall be entitled to consequential benefits such as pay, allowance and other perquisites as they are entitled to.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE RH List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1