- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.Y.RODAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 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. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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. 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29328 WP No. 30750 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24786 of 2024 WP No. 25511 of 2024 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