- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 805 OF 2014 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 5693 OF 2014 (S-RES) IN WP No. 805/2014 BETWEEN: 1. HARI PRAKASH S.P, S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED 43 YEARS 109, MANGANAHALLI SULIKERE POST, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALAORE - 560 060. 2. G.SHANTHAMMA, W/O GIRIYAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, PPLC POORNAPRJNA LAYOUT KATRIGUPPE, BANGALORE – 560 085 3. BASAVARAJU Y S/O YELLAPPA AGE: 41 YEARS # 53, DUBASI PALYA, NK PHARM,RV COLLEGE POST, MYSORE ROAD,BANGALORE- 560 059 4. PADMA W/O GUNDSHETTY Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 AGE : 36 YEARS # 82, AGS LAYOUT, SRINIVAS COLONY, 4TH CROSS, SUBRAMANYAM NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 084. 5. HANUMANTHA Y K S/O KENCHAIAH AGE: 36 YEARS E 36/A, 7TH CROSS MARUTHI NAGAR, ITTMADU BANGALORE - 560 085. 6. KANTHARAJ.K S/O KARIYAPPA AGE: 34 YEARS POLOHALLI,KARAMANGALA POST MADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120. 7. TIMMESH D S/O DASAPPA AGE: 37 YEARS # 36, DHARAMSHASTA NILAYA 4TH CROSS, GOPALAPPA LAYOUT, MANORAYANA PALYA SULTAN PALYA BANGALORE 560 032 8. MANJUNATH D S/O DASAPPA AGE: 28 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI JNANABHARATHI POST BANGALORE 560056 9. T.V. LOKESH S/O VENKATARAMU AGE: 28 YEARS # 15/20 5TH CROSS 5TH MAIN - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 DP LAYOUT BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE 560085 10. S.NIRMALA W/O DINESH AGE: 43 YEARS, # 198/1 GAVIPURAM WEST, BANGALORE - 560 019. 11. PRAKASH.M S/O MANJEGOWDA AGE: 29 YEARS # 19, MUNESHWAR NAGAR, NEAR GOVT ITI COLLEGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 085. 12. SRINIVASA MURTHY N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGE: 29 YEARS # 24/1, 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN B K NAGAR, YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE - 560 022. 13. M.S.MAHALINGAIAH S/O SANNAIH AGE: 31 YEARS MARASHETTAHALLI POST, GOLLARAHATTI KADABA HOBLI TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 225. 14. ANIL KUMAR C R S/O RAJU AGE: 24 YEARS # 109, MANGANAHALLI, SULIKERE POST,YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 060 15. ANAND KUMAR M S/O MALLAIAH - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 AGE: 26 YEARS NAGDEVANAHALLI, DODDAGOLLARAHATTI, JNANABHARATI POST, BANGALORE – 560 056. 16. B MANJUNATHA S/O BOREGOWDA AGE: 31 YEARS # 261, 6TH MAIN SRINAGAR PIPELINE, BANGALORE - 560 050. 17. MAHENDRA S S/O SHIVANNA AGE: 27 YEARS # 1212, MATHA STREET, KOTE CHANNAPATTANA RAMANAGAR - 562 160. 18. HEMANTHA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS POLOHALLI, KARAMANGALA POST MADBALU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 120 19. R.P.MADESH S/O PAPANNA AGE: 36 YEARS RAMPURA HOBLI, CHENNAPATTANA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 501 20. MARAYYA S/O UCHAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS NAGADEVAANA HALLI NEAR BOOTHAPPA TEMPLE 1ST MAIN, 1ST D CROSS BANGALORE – 560 056 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.V.LAKSMINARAYANA , SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT/MISS ANUSHA.L FOR P1 TO P19 ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041 3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) 7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING, JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001 4. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA COMBINED COUNCILS BUILDING, KOTLA ROAD,AIWNA-E-GHALIB MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002. 5. PEOPLES EDUCATION SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 50 FEET ROAD, HANUMANTHNAGAR BSK I STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 050. 6. PES PHARMACY COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL 50 FEET ROAD, HANUMANTHNAGAR BSK I STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 050 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SOMASHEKAR .,ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1; DLJ ASSOCIATES FOR R2; - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 SRI. S.S.HAVERI ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. SONA.M.BADIGERE ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE R- 5 AND R-6 TO PAY TO THE PETITIONERS SALARIES IN THE PAY SCALES ADMISSIBLE TO EMPLOYEES WORKING IN CORRESPONDING POSTS IN GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND TO GRANT ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THERE FROM, AND ALSO TO PAY ARREARS OF SALARY IN THE SAID PAY SCALES FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITIONERS INITIAL APPOINTMENT ALONG WITH REASONABLE INTEREST. IN WP NO. 5693/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O LATE SRI.T.THIMMAIAH, GNANABHARATHI POST, BEHIND MARAMMA TEMPLE, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 056 2. CHIKKANNA N S/O GIRIAPPA AGE: 27 YEARS # 1, POLOHALLI, M KARAMANGALA POST, MADUBALU HOBLI,MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562120 3. SHIVANNA N S/O NAGAIAH AGE: 40 YEARS POLOHALLI, MADABAL HOBLI KARALAMANGALA POST RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 4. JAYANNA N - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 S/O JAVARAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLIL MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD GNANABHARATHI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 056 5. C. DEVANAND S/O CHIKKAIAH B K AGE 38 YEARS # 59, 1ST CROSS BAGEGOWDA LAYOUT 100 FEET ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 085 6. HUCHAPPA S/O GABARIGOWDA AGE: 41 YEARS KANAKAR POST MAYASANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE HOBLI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572225 7. GEETHA W/O RAMAIAH M AGE: 48 YEARS # 62, GOTTIGERE POLLINAPALLINAGAR RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE - 560098 8. YELLAPPA T S S/O SIDDAPPA AGE: 52 YEARS # 322, CHANDRA LAYOUT ARUNDATHINAGAR BANGALORE-560072 9. RUKMINAMMA - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 W/O RAJAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS # 310, T R SHAMANNANAGAR RAJAPPA LAYOUT, SRINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 050 10. KUMARI W/O GOPAL AGE: 40 YEARS VEERABHADRANAGAR CHURCH ROAD, 2ND CROSS BSK II STAGE,BANGALORE-560085 11. KRISHNA S S/O GANAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS # 11, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS VEERABHADRANAGAR,100 FEET ROAD, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 085 12. PRABHAKAR S PATIL S/O SHARANAPPA PATIL AGE: 46 YEARS # 6, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 060 13. THIMMAPPA D S S/O DODDADASAPPA AGE: 36 YEARS DODDAGOLLARAHATTI, GNANABHARATHI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 056 14. THIMMAPPA D S/O CHIKKADASAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI DODDAGOLLARAHATTI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 BANGALORE-560056 15. JAYANNA C S/O CHITRAPPA AGE: 41 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI 1ST CROSS, GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 056 16. GOVINDA RAJU S/O BASAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS # 216, 4TH CROSS CHAMUNDINAGAR HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK III STAGE GIRINAGAR POST BANGALORE-560085 17. JUNJAPPA S/O ALATAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI NEAR BHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 18. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O LATE SRI. MUNIRAJU.M, NO.84, PATTANAGERE, RAJAJRAJESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 098 19. B.M.CHAITHANYA, D/O LATE SRI. MUNIRAJU.M, NO.66, PATTANGERE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098. 20. SRI.C.BHARATH RAJ - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 S/O LATE SRI. MUNIRAJU.M, NO.84, PATTANAGERE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098. 21. SHIVAKUMARI W/O DEVRAJ AGE: 36 YEARS # 30, 5TH MAIN ROAD 3RD CROSS, 100 FEET ROAD BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085 22. GIRESH S/O CHIKKANNA AGE: 28 YEARS MAGADI TALUK, MAKABAL HOBLI KARAMANGALA POST POLAHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 23. CHANDRASHEKAR B N S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGE: 34 YEARS # 56/87, 10TH MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK SRINAGAR BANGALORE-560050 24. SRINIVASA M S/O MUNISWAMAIAH AGE: 51 YEARS # 49, 4TH MAIN ROAD SRIRAMANAGAR, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085 25. SURESH M S/O MARIGOWDA AGE: 34 YEARS # 246, 1ST MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, VEERABHADRANAGAR - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 100 FEET ROAD, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085 26. CHANDRASHEKAR M H S/O HONNEGOWDA T AGE: 40 YEARS MATHIKERE, SHETTIHALLI POST MALUR HOLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501 27. SHIVARAJ S/O KARIYAPPA AGE: 31 YEARS POLLALLI, MAGADI TALUK MADABAL HOBLI KARAMANGALA POST RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 28. SURESH KUMAR P S/O POOJARAMAIAH AGE: 30 YEARS # 30, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS VEERABHADRANAGAR 100 FT. ROAD, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085 29. MANJUNATH T S/O THIMMAIAH T AGE: 29 YEARS # 123, 1ST CROSS NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 30. RAMANNA K S/O KALLAIAH AGE: 31 YEARS DODDAGOLLARAHATTI GNANABHARATHI POST - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 BANGALORE-560056 31. ROOPA R W/O VISHWANATH AGE: 33 YEARS # 18, 7TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN T R SHAMANNA NAGAR SRINAGAR BANGALORE-560050 32. DASEGOWDA S/O GANGANNA AGE: 30 YEARS BETHALLI GOLARATI KODHUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK SRIGIRAPURA POST RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 33. RANGAIAH M S/O MASAIAH AGE: 31 YEARS # 88, NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 34. DODDAYYA S/O CHIKKONAIAH AGE: 39 YEARS MALEDODDI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501 35. MAHARAJ SHARMA S/O HUNASHARMA DAS AGE: 39 YEARS # 60, 2ND CROSS, D"SOUZA NAGAR HOSKERHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560085 36. GAYATHRI C - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 W/O VENKATARAJU AGE: 48 YEARS # 23, D"SOUZA NAGAR BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560085 37. K N KALPANA W/O RAVI AGE: 38 YEARS # 14, 7TH MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, DWARAKANAGAR BSK III STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085 38. T KUMAR S/O THIMMAPPA T AGE: 33 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 39. UDAY KUMAR S/O RAMESHBABU AGE: 32 YEARS # 410, 10TH MAIN ROAD 8TH CROSS, BSK III STAGE BHUVANESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE-560085 40. M. JAVARAPPA S/O MARAIAH J AGE: 27 YEARS DODDAGOLLARAHATTI, GNANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE-560056 41. VASUDEVA B C S/O CHIKKAIAH B K AGE: 40 YEARS # 59, 1ST CROSS - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 BAGEGOWDA LAYOUT 100 FEET ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 085 42. VIJAYKUMAR M S/O MARAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS # 123, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST BANGALORE – 560 056 43. RAJU M C S/O CHIKKONAIAH AGE: 29 YEARS MALEDODDI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501 44. VENKATAPPA M S/O MARISWAMY AGE: 32 YEARS RAMPURA POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501 45. MAHALINGAYYA S/O E CHIKKAIAH AGE: 28 YEARS POLLALLI, MAGADI TALUK MADABAL HOBLI KARAMANGALA POST RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 46. KOWLAPPA T S/O THAMMAYAPPA AGE: 28 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 47. RAMANNA S S/O SANNAPPA AGE: 37 YEARS # 88, NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 48. M SURESH S/O MALLAIAH AGE: 28 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 49. M KRISHNAPPA S/O MASAIAH AGE: 29 YEARS # 28, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS NAGADEVANAHALLI, GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560056 50. AJAY KUMAR S/O MALAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 51. G N BASAMANI W/O CHIKKATHAMMIAH AGE: 36 YEARS PATTANAGERE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BANGALORE-560098 - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 52. NARASIMHAIAH N S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGE: 42 YEARS # 20, 17TH MAIN ROAD K.S.B. QUARTERS VIJAYANAGAR 2ND PHASE BANGALORE-560040 53. V K VINAY S/O KULLEGOWDA AGE: 30 YEARS # 164, VITTALAPURA, K R PETE TALUK BUKANAKERE MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 54. RANGASWAMY D S/O DODASAPPA AGE: 31 YEARS DODDAGOLLARAHATTI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI BANGALORE-560056 55. MASAIAH K S/O KARIYAPPA AGE: 29 YEARS 8TH MAIN ROAD, R R LAYOUT NAGADEVANAHALLI NEAR R.S.B. SCHOOL BANGALORE-560056 56. KASTURI W/O RANGASWAMY AGE: 43 YEARS # 274, VEERABHADRANAGAR 6TH CROSS, BSK II STAGE BANGALORE-560070 57. JAGADEESH - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGE: 32 YEARS # 506, 18TH CROSS K B COLONY, GIRINAGAR III PHASE, BANGALORE-560085 58. CHIKKANNA S/O GIRIAPPA AGE 27 YEARS # 1, POLOHALLI M KARAMANGALA POST, MADUBALU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 59. DINESH KUMAR S/O BOREGOWDA AGE: 29 YEARS # 11, 3RD CROSS, D"SOUZANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 085 60. LOKESH M S/O MARIRANGAIAH AGE: 26 YEARS DODDAGOLLARAHATTI NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 056 61. JAYANTHI K W/O SRINIVAS T N AGE: 45 YEARS # 961, HOSAKEREHALLI 4TH MAIN ROAD, BSK III STAGE KALIDASANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 085 62. RANGASWAMY T S/O THIMMAIAH - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 AGE: 29YEARS # 98, 1ST MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, NAGADEVANAHALLIL GNANABHARATHI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 056 63. JAVARAPPA S/O CHITHAPPA AGE: 28 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLIL BEHIND MARAMMA TEMPLE GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 64. GIRISWAMY S/O CHIKKANNA AGE: 27 YEARS POLOHALLI M KARAMANGALA POST MADUBALU HOBLI MAGADI TAUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 65. SURESHA H S/O PATTAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS DODDAGOLLARAHATTI JNANABHARATHI POST BANGALORE-560056 66. N KUMARA S/O NAGARAJ AGE: 26 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 67. MANJUNATHA D - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 S/O DODDAIAH AGE: 53 YEARS # 53, 2ND PHASE SRI BHUVANESHWARINAGAR DOBIGHAT, BANGALORE-560019 68. A K MOHAN KUMAR S/O KENGAGOWDA AGE: 26 YEARS # 26, AREALPAHALLI HOSAKERE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 69. B V VIJAYKUMAR S/O BERANNAGOWDA AGE: 26 YEARS BADRALLI NAGMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 70. P NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O POOJARAMAIAH AGE: 41 YEARS # 30, 1ST MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, VEERABHADRANAGAR 100 FEET ROAD, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085 71. SRINIVASA K R S/O RAMACHANDRA AGE: 25 YEARS KACHHIGERE, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 72. K M SATYA MURTHI S/O MAHADEVA AGE: 28 YEARS # 218, 8TH MAIN ROAD NAGADEVANAHALLI, R R LAYOUT KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560085 - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 73. S MANJUNATH S/O SRINIVAS AGE: 28 YEARS # 31/1, 4TH MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, A D HALLI MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGLORE-560079 74. K PREMKUMAR S/O KEMPAIAH AGE: 32 YEARS BHADRAPURA, HEJJALA POST BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 75. J JAGADISHA S/O JAYARAMMA AGE: 25 YEARS # 68, 2ND CROSS BHEEMANAKUPPE COSS RAMOHALLI, KENGERI BANGALORE-560060 76. CHIKKANNA V S/O VEERANNA AGE: 31 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD GNANABHARATHI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560056 77. G B KUMARA S/O BELLIAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS GOLARDUDDI HALASANDRA POST CHANNAPATANA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571502 - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 78. SHIVA K D S/O DASAPPA AGE: 26 YEARS # 11, KEERANAKALA DODDI ANJANAPURA POST RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120 79. NAVEENA S S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGE: 29 YEARS # 01, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS VINOBA LAYOUT AVALAHALLI NEW EXTENSION BANGALORE-560026 80. AVINASH S S/O SHIVANNE GOWDA AGE: 26 YEARS # 20, 1ST MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, ESHWARI SCHOOL ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085 81. KUMARA K S/O KANTHA AGE: 29 YEARS # 95, 3RD MAIN ROAD 100 FEET ROAD JANASHAKTHINAGAR HOSAKEREHALLI BSK III STAGE BANGALORE-560085 82. C T RAVINDRA KUMARA S/O THAMAIHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.32, MUNISWARA NAGAR HOSEKEREHALLI BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560085 - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 83. GIRISHA B S/O BOJAPPA AGE: 28 YEARS NAGADEVANAHALLI JNANABHARATHI POST BANGALORE-560056 84. E SAGAYA RAJ S/O ENASAPPA AGE: 37 YEARS # 203,VERABHADRANAGARA 4TH CROSS, HOSAKEREHALLI BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560085 85. MAN BHADUR S/O RAMBAHADUR AGE: 42 YEARS # 203,VERABHDRANAGARA 4TH CROSS, HOSAKEREHALLI BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560085 86. SATHYA RANI W/O AROKYADAS AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS # 133, 8TH CROSS OPP PESIT COLLEGE VEERABHADRA NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 085 87. SARASWATHI S W/O RAVI V R AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS # 42, 10TH CROSS BALAJI NAGAR, ITTAMADU BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE - 560085 88. YAMUNAMMA - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 W/O SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS # 42, 10TH CROSS BALAJI NAGAR, ITTAMADU BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560085 89. MANJU W/O BHASKAR AGE: 35 YEARS # 2, 14TH A MAIN ROAD HOSAKEREHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560085 90. SUSHEELAMMA W/O JAYARAMU AGE: 38 YEARS # 222, B JANATHA COLONY 1ST CROSS, MARIYAPPANA PALYA JANANABHARATHI POST BANGALORE-560056 ….PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT/MISS ANUSHAL ADVOCATE FOR P2 TO P17, P19 TO P88) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHEREDUCATION M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) 7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK - 24 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 BUILDING, JANPATH NEW DELHI-110001 4. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY BELGAUM-590018 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 5. PEOPLES EDUCATION SOCIETY 50 FEET ROAD, HANUMANTHNAGAR B.S.K. 1ST STAGE BANGALORE – 560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 6. PES INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 100 FEET RING ROAD BSK III STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL …….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.N.MURTHY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ZULFI KUMAR SHAFI AND SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY ADVOCATES FOR R4; SRI. SONA.M.BADIGERE ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 & 6 TO PAY TO THE PETITIONERS SALARIES IN THE PAY SCALES ADMISSIBLE TO EMPLOYEES WORKING IN CORRESPONDING POSTS IN GOVT. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND TO GRANT ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THERE FROM AND ALSO TO PAY ARREARS OF SALARY IN THE SAID PAY SCALES FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITIONERS INITIAL APPOINTMENT ALONG WITH REASONABLE INTEREST. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 25 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners filed these writ petitions seeking the following reliefs: IN WP No.805/2014: i. ISSUE a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 5 ^ (th) and 6 ^ (th) respondents to pay to the petitioners salaries in the pay scales admissible to employees working in corresponding posts in Government educational institutions and to grant all other consequential benefits flowing therefrom, and, also, to pay arrears of salary in the said pay scales from the date of the petitioners' initial appointment along with reasonable interest; ii. ISSUE any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents nos. 1-4 to ensure the 5th and 6th respondents properly fix the salary of the petitioners as prayed for above; and iii. GRANT such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. - 26 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 IN WP No.5693/2014: a. WHEREFORE, the petitioners, herein, respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to ISSUE a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 5th and 6th respondents to pay to the petitioners' salaries in the pay scales admissible to employees working in corresponding posts in Government educational institutions and to grant all other consequential benefits flowing therefrom. and, also, to b. pay arrears of salary in the said pay scales from the date of the petitioners' initial appointment along with reasonable interest. c. ISSUE any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no1-4 to ensure the 5th and 6th respondents properly fix the salary of the petitioners as prayed for above; and d. GRANT such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. e. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay regular pay scales on the basis of the state government norms and policies as payable to their counter parts in the government and government institutions or university colleges on the principle of - 27 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 parity; as prescribed under the Karnataka Education Act and Pharmacy Council of India; f. Declare that payment of consolidated salary without payment of the basic salary, increments and other benefits is violative of article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India; and g. Direct the respondents to extend the pay scales of 6th pay and 7th pay commission of the state government to the petitioners as per the C & R rules framed by the management which is in force because of PES university Act of 2012. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these petitions are as follows: The petitioners are working as a permanent non- teaching staff in respondent Pharmacy College which is owned and possessed by respondent No.5. Respondent No.6-College is affiliated to respondent No.4-University and is recognised by respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioners have tendered service between 8 to 27 years in respondent No.6-College. Salaries of the petitioners are based on pay-scales which are much lower than the pay- - 28 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 scales of employees working in corresponding posts in Government educational institutions, which is in violation of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institution (Discipline and Control) Rules 1978 as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 to fix their salaries in the pay-scales admissible with employees working in corresponding posts in the Government Educational Institutions. Earlier, these writ petitions came to be allowed vide order dated 29.12.2016. The respondent i.e., PES , respondent Nos.5 and 6 aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2016, filed writ appeals in WA No.805/2017 connected with WA Nos.806/2017 and 807/2017 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, vide judgment dated 11.07.2023, allowed the appeals in part and set aside the order dated 29.12.2016 passed in WP Nos.5673-5780/2014 and remitted the matter to this Court without expressing any - 29 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by both the parties. 3. Sri. S.N.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 has primarily raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions against a private educational institution. He submits that, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are private institutions. He submits that, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not getting any aid from the Government and they are not discharging any public functions. He submits that, the petitioners have got efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners have already availed efficacious remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also contended that, the petitioners are not non-teaching employees of any aided institution. He also submits that, AICTE/VTU had not fixed pay-scale for non-teaching staff and the respondent-Institution has got separate service conditions and they are not controlled by any statute. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the - 30 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, wherein it was held at paragraph No.161 in answer to Q.5(c) that, “minority institutions in the matter of day-to-day management, like appointment of staff, teaching and non- teaching and administrative control over them, the management should have the freedom and there should not be any external controlling agency”. He also submits that the regulations can be framed governing service conditions for teaching and other staffs from whom aid is provided by the State, without interfering with overall administrative control of the management over the staff. The fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be regulated, but no institution should charge capitation fee. He submits that the petitioners have got an efficacious remedy and they have availed by filing a petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner II. He submits that a joint meeting was called by the Assistant Labour - 31 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 Commissioner vide notices dated 12.12.2012 and 07.06.2013. However, the Employees Association later withdrew the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner to Bengaluru with a malafide intention only to file a writ petition under the instigation from the Union and the petitioners have individually approached this Court. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable as they have got an efficacious remedy provided under the Industrial Dispute Act. He also submits that the Government of Karnataka has issued a notification dated 24.01.2017 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for non-teaching employees of the private educational institutions and also notification dated 22.05.2026 vide Annexure-R6G has fixed the minimum wages for non- teaching staff of a private educational institutions. In view of the fixation of minimum wages for non-teaching staff of the Private Educational Institution, it is clear that there can be no claim for payment otherwise than what is fixed under the notification. He submits that the Karnataka - 32 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 is not applicable to the establishments administered by any University established by law. This confirmation is given to the respondent by Government of Karnataka as per Annexure-R6C. He submits that AICTE, VTU or UGC have not fixed any pay scales for non- teaching employees for the respondent pharmacy and engineering college. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding maintainability of the writ petition in the case of PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY reported in (2002) 5 SCC 111. He submits that when the control is merely regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society and others v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargav and others reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498. He submits that the respondents have got their separate Rules i.e., PES - 33 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 University Rules, 2019 and they are governed by the provisions of PES University Act, statues, regulations and guidelines governing service conditions of the employees. 4. As per Section 33 (iv) of the PES University Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act of 2012’) has empowered the University to prescribe the mode of recruitment, and the terms and conditions of the other officers, teachers and employees of the University. The non-teachings staffs are employed by the University. As such whatever is decided by respondent No.5 with regard to the wages of non- teaching staff would be final and binding cannot be called in question. He submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. He submits that the power is given to respondent No.6 under Section 33 of the Rules and Regulations and not by the government. Hence, he submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable against the private education institution. - 34 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri Lakshmi Narayana, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. He submits that though the petitioners have approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, and filed a petition and subsequently they have withdrawn the petition. He submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 – Institution are governed by the provisions of AICTE and UGC Regulations. He submits that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka has filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of W.P.(Civil).No.531/2025 stating that all the Private Universities established under the State Enactments are governed by the provisions of the respective Acts, statutes, Rules and regulation as well as the norms and regulations framed by the statutory regulatory body including the University grant commission, - 35 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 All India Council for Technical Education, Dental Council of India, Bar Council of India etc., and other competent regulatory authority. He submits that State Government has categorically affirmed that the private universities are bound to pay salaries to the teaching and non-teachings staffs in accordance with applicable laws, Rules and Regulations as referred to clause 3.4 provides compliance of All India Counsel for technical education and UGC Regulation. He submits that the State Government of Karnataka has enacted the PES University Act, 2012 and Rules made therein as per PES University Rules, 2019, the Rules have been framed and same was published, in the Official Gazette dated 18.12.2019 and the salary of other employees on par with that of the State Government employees in terms of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 3. As per AICTE Regulations framed by AICTE seeking recognition private educational institutions would be governed by the rules framed by the AICTE regarding service conditions of the employees and he refers to Rule 6 i.e., condition for grant - 36 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 of approval. He also refers to the Vishweshwaraia Technical University Act of 1994. The said University is a autonomous university and the pay scale of non-teaching staff shall be payable as per the government policy which rules framed therein that the employees of non-teaching staff have been payable as per the scale. 6. To buttress his arguments he has placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of AYESHA JAIN VS. AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA & ORS. IN W.P.NO.(CIVIL) NO.531/2025. He submits that when respondent No.6 University is governed by the UGC Regulations and AICTE, hence, the writ petition filed against the private educational Institution is maintainable. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of IVY C.DA CONCEICAO VS/ STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS reported in 2017(3) SCC 619. - 37 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 7. The University established under the State the writ is maintainable and Rules will prevail until and unless the rules are not binding. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.KRISHNAMACHARYULU AND OTHERS VS. SRI VENKATESHWARA HINDU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER reported IN 1997 (3) SCC 571, MARWARI BALIKA VIDYALAYA VS. ASHA SRIVASTAVA reported in 2020(14) SCC 449. The pay scale are governed by the recognition and given an undertaking. He submits that the respondents filed an affidavit stating that they accepted the AICTE Regulation in part as well as regarding wages is concerned they have not accepted. He submits that the respondent-University cannot accept regulations in part and can decline to accept the remaining part of the regulations. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to hold that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable. - 38 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are working in the respondent No.5-Institution. The petitioners have been appointed in various non-teaching staffs post in respondent No.6-Pharmacy College from 1993 to 2011. The current pay scales and allowances in the Government Educational Institutions are based on the recommendation of the official pay committee 2011. The said recommendation have been accepted by the State Government by its order No.FD7SRP2012 dated 21.04.2012. The petitioners made a several request including the written representation dated 29.10.2013 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to fix their salary on pay scale of the employment in equivalent post in the Government Educational Institution. However, the said respondents have not heeded to the request made by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking for - 39 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 mandamus directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 to pay to the petitioners’ salary in pay scales admissible to the employees working in corresponding post in government educational institutions and to grant all other consequential benefits while there from and also to pay the arrears of salary in the pay scale from the date of petitioner initial appointment along with reasonable interest. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed the statement of objections and additional statement of objections contending that respondent No.6-College is an independent institution and not affiliated to PES University of 2023-24. The respondent No.6 college is now affiliated to PES University as per decision letter of pharmacy counsel of India. Section 40 of PES University Act, 2012 provides for condition of service of the staff of the University. The Government of Karnataka vide notification dated 19.11.2013 directed the PES University to make statue and regulations within a period of three months from the date of said notification and accordingly, the - 40 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 University has made a statue of PES University Act, 2012 on 05.02.2014. In this regulations chapter VII Regulation 34 provides for formation of regulations and guidelines for the service conditions of the University. The PES University published guidelines governing the service conditions of the employees of the University in 2014 and same was notified by the University on 05.02.2024. Guidelines 24 provides for criteria for the employment and scales of pay as per PES University norms. Accordingly, PES Universities Regulations pay scales are made applicable to non teaching staffs. 10. The question involved in this instant writ petition is whether the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the private University is maintainable and the Private University falls within the preview of the “State" as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India? - 41 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 11. Admittedly, respondent No.5 is a minority institution established for the benefit of students speaking Telugu language and to promote the Telugu language and culture as per the objectives mentioned in bye-laws. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 has framed the question No.5 (c) which reads as follows: Q.5(c) Whether the statutory Provisions which regulate the facets of administration like control over educational agencies, control over governing bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition/withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff, teachers and Principals including their service conditions and regulation of fees, etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities? A. So far as the statutory provisions regulating the facets administration is concerned, in case of an unaided minority educational institution, the regulatory measure of control should be minimal and the conditions of recognition as well as conditions of affiliation to an University or Board have to be complied with, but in the matter of day-to-day Management, like appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching and administrative control over them, the Management should have the freedom and there should not be any external controlling agency. - 42 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 However, a rational procedure for selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action has to be evolved by the Management itself. For redressing the grievances of such employees who are subjected to punishment or termination from service, a mechanism will have to be evolved and in our opinion, appropriate tribunals could be constituted, and till then, such tribunal could be presided over by a Judicial officer of the rank of District Judge. The state or other controlling authorities, however, can always prescribe the minimum qualifications, salaries, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a teacher of an educational institution. 12. Further Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY & ORS. reported in 2022 (5) SCC 111 comprising of seven judges bench the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider whether the Indian Institute of Chemical biology is not a State. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in para No.40 which reads as follows: 40. The picture that ultimately emerges is that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be - 43 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State. (Emphasis Supplied) 13. From the perusal of the judgment passed in the aforesaid case it clearly discloses that if the institution under the control is regulatory, whether under the statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. 14. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are governed by AICTE Regulations. The said regulations are regulatory in nature under the statute. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are under the statue of UGC and AICTE it does not fall within the body of the “State”. - 44 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 15. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ST. MARYS EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTEHRS VS RAJENDRA PRASAD BHARGAVA AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498 held in para Nos.67 and 68, which reads as follows: 67. Our present judgment would remain incomplete if we fail to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Ramakrishnan Mission v. Kago Kunya, (2019) 16 SCC 303. In the said case this Court considered all its earlier judgments on the issue. The writ petition was not found maintainable against the Mission merely for the reason that it was found running a hospital, thus discharging public functions/public duty. This Court considered the issue in reference to the element of public function which should be akin to the work performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. This Court took the view that every public function/public duty would not make a writ petition to be maintainable against an “authority” or a “person” referred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the functions are such which are akin to the functions of the State or are sovereign in nature. Few relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted as under for ready reference: “17. The basic issue before this Court is whether the functions performed by the hospital are public functions, on the basis of which a writ of mandamus can lie under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18. The hospital is a branch of the Ramakrishna Mission and is subject to its control. The Mission was established by Swami Vivekanand, the foremost disciple of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa. Service to humanity is for the organisation coequal with service to God as is reflected in the motto “Atmano Mokshartham Jagad Hitaya Cha”. The - 45 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 main object of the Ramakrishna Mission is to impart knowledge in and promote the study of Vedanta and its principles propounded by Shri. Ramakrishna Paramahansa and practically illustrated by his own life and of comparative theology in its widest form. Its objects include, inter alia to establish, maintain, carry on and assist schools, colleges, universities, research institutions, libraries, hospitals and take up development and general welfare activities for the benefit of the underprivileged/backward/tribal people of society without any discrimination. These activities are voluntary, charitable and nonprofit making in nature. The activities undertaken by the Mission, a nonprofit entity are not closely related to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity nor do they partake of the nature of a public duty. 19. The Governing Body of the Mission is constituted by members of the Board of Trustees of Ramakrishna Math and is vested with the power and authority to manage the organisation. The properties and funds of the Mission and its management vest in the Governing Body. Any person can become a member of the Mission if elected by the Governing Body. Members on roll form the quorum of the annual general meetings. The Managing Committee comprises of members appointed by the Governing Body for managing the affairs of the Mission. Under the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the Mission, there is no governmental control in the functioning, administration and day to day management of the Mission. The conditions of service of the employees of the hospital are governed by service rules which are framed by the Mission without the intervention of any governmental body. 20. In coming to the conclusion that the appellants fell within the description of an authority under Article 226, the High Court placed a considerable degree of reliance on the judgment of a two Judge Bench of this Court in Andi Mukta [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691]. Andi Mukta [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC - 46 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 691] was a case where a public trust was running a college which was affiliated to Gujarat University, a body governed by the State legislation. The teachers of the University and all its affiliated colleges were governed, insofar as their pay scales were concerned, by the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. A dispute over pay scales raised by the association representing the teachers of the University had been the subject matter of an award of the Chancellor, which was accepted by the government as well as by the University. The management of the college, in question, decided to close it down without prior approval. A writ petition was instituted before the High Court for the enforcement of the right of the teachers to receive their salaries and terminal benefits in accordance with the governing provisions. In that context, this Court dealt with the issue as to whether the management of the college was amenable to the writ jurisdiction. A number of circumstances weighed in the ultimate decision of this Court, including the following: 20.1. The trust was managing an affiliated college. 20.2. The college was in receipt of government aid. 20.3. The aid of the government played a major role in the control, management and work of the educational institution. 20.4. Aided institutions, in a similar manner as government institutions, discharge a public function of imparting education to students. 20.5. All aided institutions are governed by the rules and regulations of the affiliating University. 20.6. Their activities are closely supervised by the University. 20.7. Employment in such institutions is hence, not devoid of a public character and is governed by the decisions taken by the University which are binding on the management. - 47 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 21. It was in the above circumstances that this Court came to the conclusion that the service conditions of the academic staff do not partake of a private character, but are governed by a right duty relationship between the staff and the management. A breach of the duty, it was held, would be amenable to the remedy of a writ of mandamus. While the Court recognised that “the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting rights of people cannot be put into watertight compartments”, it laid down two exceptions where the remedy of mandamus would not be available : (SCC p. 698, para 15) ‘15. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to mandamus.” 22. Following the decision in Andi Mukta, this Court has had the occasion to revisit the underlying principles in successive decisions. This has led to the evolution of principles to determine what constitutes a “public duty” and “public function” and whether the writ of mandamus would be available to an individual who seeks to enforce her right. 25. A similar view was taken in Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, where a two Judge Bench of this Court held that a private body can be held to be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 when it performs public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State or its authorities. 26. In Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, this Court analysed the earlier judgments of this Court and provided a classification of entities against whom a writ petition may be maintainable : (SCC p. 748, para 18) ‘18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a - 48 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.” 16. The petitioner has produced the regulations issued by the University Grants Commission i.e., UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. From the perusal of the Regulation it clearly defines “private University” means a university duly established through a State/Central Act by a sponsoring body viz, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or any other corresponding law for the time being in force in a State or a Public Trust or a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. 17. Further Regulation 3.3.3. if the functioning of the said centre(s) remains unsatisfactory, the private University shall be instructed by the UGC to close down the said centre(s), which shall be binding on the - 49 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 university. In such a situation, the interests of the students already enrolled therein shall be protected. 3.4. A private university shall fulfil the minimum criteria in terms of programmes, faculty, infrastructural facilities, financial viability, etc., as laid down from time to time by the UGC and other concerned statutory bodies such as the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Bar Council of India (BCI), Distance Education Council (DEC), Dental Council of India (DCI), Indian Nursing Council (INC), Medical Council of India (MCI), National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), etc. 18. From the perusal of the UGC Regulation the University Regulation, 2023 does not provide regarding payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Private University. The petitioner has produced UGC (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009 - 50 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 provides Eligibility Criteria for Temporary Affiliation i.e., Regulation 3. 3.4.5 provides that to the effect that the members of the teaching and non-teaching staff shall be regularly and fully paid in the pay scales along with applicable allowances as per the pay scales prescribed by the UGC/Central/State Govt. as the case may be, from time to time. 19. From the perusal of the definition of the College as per Regulation 2.2. provides that “college” means any institution, whether known as such or by any other name which provides for a programme of study beyond 12 years of schooling for obtaining any qualification from a university and which, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the university, is recognized by the UGC as competent to provide for such programme of study and present students undergoing such programme of such for the examination for the award of such qualification. - 51 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 20. The UGC (Affiliation of Colleges offering Technical Education by Universities) Regulations, 2014 provides appointment of Principal and teaching staff in newly affiliated technical colleges i.e., Regulation No.2.2.8, which reads as follows: 2.2.8.1 New technical colleges granted letter of affiliation and the existing technical colleges granted affiliation for introduction of new programme(s), shall comply with appointment of teaching staff and Principal as the case may be, as per relevant UGC Regulations regarding minimum qualifications and pay scale etc., and other technical supporting staff and administrative staff as per the schedule prescribed by the university. Technical colleges shall appoint supporting technical and administrative staff strictly in accordance with the methods and procedures of the affiliating university, State Government concerned. The information about appointments of staff in the prescribed format shall also be uploaded on the web portal of University. In no circumstances, unless the appointment of all teaching and other staff is in place, the technical colleges shall start the course. 21. The petitioners have produced the Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi Statutes on Autonomous Colleges (Amended), 2018 it provides that all - 52 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 the Regulations notifications framed by the UGC/AICTE/State Government/University from time to time shall be followed in letter and spirit by all the Autonomous Colleges and an undertaking to this effect shall be uploaded on the College website. 22. Admittedly, respondent No.5 is a Private University. The said University was established as per notification dated 16.05.2013 issued by the Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation Secretariat and also the Karnataka Act No.16/2013 first published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on 07.02.2013 and the PES University Act, 2012 received the assent of the Governor on 05.02.2013 and notification from Karnataka Government Secretariat, Higher Education Department, MS Building dated 19.11.2013. 23. As per PES University Act, 2013 Section 40 of the which reads as follows: - 53 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 40. Conditions of service of employees.- (1) Every employee shall be appointed under a written contract subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by statutes and regulations or prescribed if any by rules which shall be kept in the University and a copy of which shall be furnished to the employee concerned. (2) Disciplinary action against the employees shall be governed by the procedure specified in the Statutes. (3) Any dispute arising out of the contract between the University and an employee shall, be resolved in the manner provided for in the written contract and in accordance with the Statues. 24. Sub Section 3 of Section 40 of the Act of 2013, which reads as under: (3) Any dispute arising out of the contract between the University and an employee shall, be resolved in the manner provided for in the written contract and in accordance with the Statues. 25. The University has also enacted the Rules as PES University, Rules 2019 Rule 3 provides: Rule - 3. Salary and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Officers and employees of the University- (1) The salary and allowances payable to the teaching faculty shall be on par with the U.G.C Pay scales. (2) The salary and allowances of other employees shall be on par with the other State Government Employees of equivalent rank. - 54 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 (3) The method of recruitment of teaching staff shall be in accordance with the U.G.C regulations issued from time to time in respect of no n-teaching staff shall be in accordance with merit and with recruitment policy of State Government as the case may be. 26. The Rules provide for the salary and allowances payable to the other employees shall be on par with the State Government employees of equivalent rank. However if there is any dispute in regard to the payment of salary, the petitioners have to avail the remedy provided as per sub Section 3 of the Section 40 of the Act of 2013. 27. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners have already approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The petitioner simultaneously filed a writ petition. Admittedly, the respondent University is a minority institution the Government is not a stake holder and the University is not receiving any aid from the Government. - 55 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 28. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TEKRAJ VASANDI ALIAS K.L. BASANDHI VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS reported in (1988) 1 SCC 236 held that in para No.3, which reads as follows: The main question for consideration now, therefore, is whether ICPS is 'State'. For appropriate consideration of this question it is necessary to look into the constitution of the body, the purpose for which it has been created, the manner of its functioning including the mode of its funding and the broad features which have been found by this Court in several decisions to be relevant in the matter of determining a dispute of this type. Article 12 of the Constitution provides an inclusive definition of the term 'State' by saying: "In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India." 29. Admittedly, in the instant case, the University/College was neither an agency nor an instrumentality of the Government and did not constitute ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. - 56 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 30. In the case of CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA V. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING (NCERT) AND ORS., reported in AIR 1992 SC 76, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether the National Council of Educational Research and Training is “State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution? This is the only question that calls for decision in this appeal. The appellant was an employee of the NCERT. His services were terminated by the Secretary of NCERT. Challenging the termination he moved to the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The NCERT raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The objection was that the NCERT is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as it is not an instrumentality or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The High Court has upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petition. - 57 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of FEDERAL BANK LTD., VS. SAGAR THOMAS AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2004 SC 3264 held that held that a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don't find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor puts any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. 32. Admittedly, in the instant case, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the - 58 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 respondent-University are bound by the Regulations of AICTE and UGC which provides for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staffs. AICTE Regulations and UGC are regulated by the PES University. Admittedly, the said university is a private university does not qualify as the State or Instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, making private employment disputes. Admittedly, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is in regard to the payment of salary. The said dispute is unmaintainable as the University is a private university and does not qualify as the State or Instrumentality of the State. 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BINNY LTD., AND ANOTHER VS. V.SADASIVAN AND OTHERS reported in 2005 (6) SCC 657 held that under the powers of judicial review by the High Court, a public action alone could have been challenged and the decision to terminate the service of an employee on the ground that his services - 59 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 were unsatisfactory does not have any public law element and, therefore, the High Court has rightly rejected the contentions advanced by the appellant therein. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held in para No.23 and 24, which reads as follows: 23. The counsel for the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 1998 and for the appellant in the civil appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6016 of 2002 strongly contended that irrespective of the nature of the body, the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable provided such body is discharging a public function or statutory function and that the decision itself has the flavour of public law element and they relied on the decision of this Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors (1989) 2 SCC 691. In this case, the appellant was a Trust running a science college affiliated to the Gujarat University under Gujarat University Act, 1949. The teachers working in that college were paid in the pay scales recommended by the University Grants Commission and the college was an aided institution. There was some dispute between the University Teachers Association and the University regarding the fixation of their pay scales. Ultimately, the Chancellor passed an award and this award was accepted by the State Govt. as well as the University and the University directed to pay the teachers as per the award. The appellants refused to implement the award and the respondents filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus and in the writ petition the appellants contended that the college managed by the Trust was not an "authority" coming within the purview of Article 12 of the - 60 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 Constitution and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable. This plea was rejected and this Court held that the writ of mandamus would lie against a private individual and the words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 are not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State and they may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists, mandamus cannot be denied. 24. The above decision cannot be applied to the facts of this case. It is important to note that the college was an aided institution and imparting education to students. These facts are specifically stated in paragraph 15 of the judgment. It was in this background that this Court held that there was a public law element in the matter involved therein and that the college authorities were bound to pay salary and allowances to the teachers. The said case did not emanate from a contract of employment between the workers and the private body. For that reason, the Rudani's case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 34. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is a dispute in regard to the payment of salary to the petitioners by the respondents. As observed above, the petitioners have already approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and exhausted the efficacious remedy - 61 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 provided under the Act. The petitioner cannot file a writ for mandamus seeking for payment of salary. The said dispute is arising out of contract between the petitioners and the respondents. It is settled law that in a contract matter, the scope of interference in the writ by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. 35. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JATYA PAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2013(6) SCC 452 held that the Former Employees of VSNL challenged their termination, arguing that because VSNL was once a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) carrying out telecommunication services, it remained an “authority” obligated to uphold fundamental rights under Article 12. The Supreme Court held that Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (VSNL), following its privatization and acquisition by the Tata Group, is no longer considered a “State” or “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution. Consequently, it is no longer amenable to writ jurisdiction. - 62 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAMAKRISHNA MISSION VS. KAGO KUNYA reported in AIR 2019 SC 5570 has observed that the Ramakrishna Mission operated a hospital in Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. A dispute arose, and a writ petition was filed in the Gauhati High Court against the Mission. The Single Judge ruled that the Mission fell under the category of “State”, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of the High Court modified this stating that it may not be a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12, the hospital performed a public duty and was therefore amenable to writs under Article 226. It also held that private hospitals performing charitable services do not engage in “public functions” and are not subject to Article 226 writ jurisdiction for employment disputes. (Emphasis Supplied). 37. The Supreme Court concluded that the Ramakrishna Mission and its hospital are not "State" under - 63 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 Article 12 or an "authority" under Article 226. The Court ruled that service disputes with private charitable bodies do not involve public law duties, making writ petitions unmaintainable. 38. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ST. MARY’S EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD BHARGAVA reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498 held that the employees of private, unaided educational institutions cannot use writ petitions (Article 226) to challenge service disputes. Private employment contracts lack the “public law element” required for judicial review. The writ petition was ordered to be dismissed in limine holding that the said educational institution being an unaided and a private school managed by the society cannot be said to be an instrument of the State. The employment terms of non- teaching/administrative staff are purely internal arrangements. Employing a specific individual for internal management has no direct connection to the institution’s - 64 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 public obligation to impart education. The disputes action must have a public law character. If an employee’s termination stems from the internal management or a private service contract with no statutory force, no writ of mandamus can be issued. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of St.Marry’s Education Society observed that the writ petitions for everyday private service/employment disputes would flood courts and incorrectly blur the lines between public and private law. 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.KRISHNAMACHARYULU AND OTHERS VS. SHRI VENKATESWARA HINDU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER reported in (1997)2 SCR 368 held that the issue of writ of mandamus by the Court against the private educational institution like the first respondent herein would be justified only if a public law element is involved and if it is only a private law remedy no Writ Petition would lie. - 65 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 40. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SATIMBLA SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. ST. PAUL SR.SECONDARY SCHOOL AND OTHERS reported in 2011(13) SCC 760 held in para Nos.23 and 24, which reads as follows: 23. We also do not think that the Court could issue a mandamus to a private unaided school to pay the salary and allowances equal to the salary and allowances payable to teachers of Government schools or Government aided schools. This is because the salary and allowances of teachers of a private unaided school is a matter of contract between the school and the teacher and is not within the domain of public law. 24. In Sushmita Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity & Ors. [(2006) 7 SCC 680], the teachers of a recognized private school known as Ballygunge Siksha Sadan in Calcutta filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the authorities of the school to fix the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and to remove all anomalies in the scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission as extended to other Government aided schools and Government schools and this Court held that in the absence of statutory provision no such direction can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 41. 41. Admittedly, the dispute is in regard to the payment of salary between the college/University and - 66 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 non-teaching staff. The dispute is strictly a private contract between the petitioners and the respondents. It is outside the domine of public law. 42. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners’ placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BCCI V. CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 3 SCC 251 at para No.33 reads as follows: The majority view thus favours the view that BCCI is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 even when it is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12. The rationale underlying that view if we may say with utmost respect lies in the “nature of duties and functions” which BCCI performs. It is common ground that the respondent Board has a complete sway over the game of cricket in this country. It regulates and controls the game to the exclusion of all others. It formulates rules, regulations, norms and standards covering all aspects of the game. It also held at para 34 that the functions of the Board are clearly public functions, which, till such time the State intervenes to takeover the same. 43. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondent University is not discharging any public functions. - 67 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 44. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MARWARI BALIKA VIDYALAYA VS. ASHA SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS reported in (2020)14 SCC 449 held that “any person or authority used to Article 226 cannot be confined only to statutory authorities or instrumentalities of the State, but may cover any other person or body performing public duty”. 45. Admittedly in the said case the private school was receiving grant in aid to the extent of DA. Admittedly in the instant case the respondent in your city/college are not receiving any grant in aid. Hence the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the case on hand. 46. The petitioners have also placed a reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JANET JEYAPAUL VS. SRM UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 16 SCC 350. - 68 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 47. From the perusal of the judgment, it is clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court has entertained the writ petition solely on the ground that the learned single judge while disposing of the writ petition not only observed that the writ petition allowed on merits, wherein the Division Bench has held that the writ petitions are not maintainable. Thus on the ground that the learned single judge has entertained the writ petition on merits. Thus the Supreme Court did not directed the parties to approach the Tribunal. 48. Admittedly in the instant case the petitioners have already approached the Assistant Labor Commissioner and the said issue is pending before the Assistant Labor Commissioner. The facts involved in the said case does not apply to the case on hand. 49. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RUNGTA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BHILAI AND ANOTHER VS. - 69 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 CHHATISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANANDA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 11 SCC 291 held in para No.B that “the power and function of AICTE provided under 1987 Act enacted under Schedule VII List 1 entry 66 No State law can overlap or stipulate norms of higher standards on the area covered by the Central Act. Thus, norms and guidelines framed by AICTE are paramount and university regulations cannot override it.” 50. From the perusal of AICTE, the AICTE regulation doesn't provide regarding payment of salary. The said judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not applicable. 51. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in FRANK ANTHONY PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1986) 4 SCC 707 held in para 23, which reads as follows: We must refer to the submissions of Mr. Frank Anthony regarding the excellence of the institution - 70 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 and the fear that the institution may have to close down if they have to pay higher scales of salary and allowances to the members of the staff. As we said earlier the excellence of the institution is largely dependent on the excellence of the teachers and it is no answer to the demand of the teachers for higher salaries to say that in view of the high reputation enjoyed by the institution for its excellence, it is unnecessary to seek to apply provisions like Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act to the Frank Anthony Public School. On the other hand, we should think that the very contribution made by the teachers to earn for the institution the high reputation that it enjoys should spur the management to adopt at least the same scales of pay as the other institutions to which Section 10 applies. Regarding the fear ex- pressed by Shri Frank Anthony that the institution may have to close down we can only hope that the management will do nothing to the nose to spite the face, merely to 'put the teachers in their proper place'. The fear expressed by the management here has the same ring as the fear expressed invariably by the management of every industry that disastrous results would follow which may even lead to the closing down of the industry if wage scales are revised. 52. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the management of the minority educational institution cannot be permitted under the guise of a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, to oppress, exploit its employees any - 71 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 more than any other private employees, is bound to lead, inevitability or to discontent and deterioration of the standard of instructions imparted in the institution. Admittedly in the instant case the University has framed the Act and Rules. The petitioners have not challenged the Acts and Rules regulations framed by the University. Hence the judgment relied upon by the Learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. 53. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the respondent university/college are liable to pay salary and allowances to the non-teaching staff on par with the State Government employees of equivalent rank. If that is so the petitioners have got efficacious remedy under the Industrial dispute Act. Already the petitioners have already approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In view of the same the respondent No.5 is a minority institution established for the benefit of the students of Telugu language and to promote the Telugu language. The - 72 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 university is having control and management like appointment of a staff, teaching and non-teaching and the management have freedom and the regulations framed by the University, governing service conditions for teaching and other staffs. As the petitioners are having efficacious remedies provided under the industrial dispute Act, 1947. 54. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RIKHAB CHAND JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA reported in 2025 INSC 1337, it was held that when equal efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner and hence, the writ is not maintainable. Hence on these grounds, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. 55. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. W.P.No.805/2014 and W.P.No.5693/2014 are dismissed. - 73 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010070522014 NC: 2026:KHC:41320 WP No. 805 of 2014 C/W WP No. 5693 of 2014 ii. The liberty is reserved to the petitioners to pursue their grievance before the appropriate Authority, if so desired. iii. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. iv. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA, SSB