1 2026:CGHC:6456-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.A No.113 of 2026 Dr. Madhurima Pandey W/o Shri Piyushkant Pandey Aged About 60 Years R/o Quarter No. 4-B, Street No. 20, Sector 8, Bhilainagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Technical Education Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Through The Registrar P.O. Newai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhilai Institute Of Technology Through The Registrar Bhiali House, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Incharge Principal, Bhilai Institute Of Technology Bhilai House, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.06 16:22:01 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent/State:Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 02.01.2026 passed in WPS No.11842/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition at the threshold solely on the ground of maintainability holding that the Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the remedy available under the rules and provisions governing the field and that the time spent before this Court shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation, the Petitioner having been bonafidely prosecuting the proceedings. It was further clarified that the Court has not touched the merits of the case and in the event of recourse being taken under law, the adjudicating authority/Court shall decide the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 3 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in treating the private character of Respondent No.3 as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 22, without examining the statutory source of the rights asserted and duties alleged to have been breached. It is contended that CSVTU is a statutory university and Respondent No. 3, being an affiliated college, is governed by Statute No.19 framed under the CSVTU Act, 2004, whereby the service conditions of teachers including age of superannuation and termination are statutorily regulated and not purely contractual. He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the statutory notice dated 11.08.2025 issued by CSVTU, thereby overlooking the public law character of the dispute, and placed reliance on Army Welfare Education Society New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1683) without appreciating that the said decision applies only to purely private employment devoid of statutory control, which is distinguishable from the present case. It is further submitted that binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Dilip Kumar Nehru v. St. Xavier’s College (2020) 14 SCC 449 and St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023) 18 SCC 581, recognize maintainability where termination violates statutory service provisions even in unaided institutions. The impugned 4 order, having ignored the governing statutory framework and decisive jurisdictional facts, is therefore, vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference in the present Writ Appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent– State supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable since Respondent No.3 is a private unaided institution and the dispute relates to service conditions arising from a contractual relationship for which, an alternative civil remedy is available. It is contended that mere affiliation to a statutory university or issuance of a communication seeking explanation does not create a public law obligation enforceable under Article 226. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order warrants no interference in Writ Appeal. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material available on record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference in Writ Appeal is made out. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the dispute raised by the Appellant pertains to service conditions arising out of employment in a private unaided institution for which, an efficacious alternative remedy in accordance with law is 5 available and therefore, the Writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mere affiliation of the institution with a statutory university or issuance of a communication by the University does not, in the facts of the present case, confer a public law character so as to warrant exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, leaving it open to the Appellant to avail such alternative remedy as may be available in law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Priya