Private University Professor's Termination Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Unless It Involves Breach Of Statutory/Public Duty: Gauhati HC

Background Facts

The appellant was appointed as an Associate Professor at Royal School of Law and Administration, Assam Royal Global University in the year 2022. She completed her probation and received salary revisions and incentives for excellent performance. She was also nominated as a Ph.D. Guide in March, 2023.

The appellant had been guiding six Ph.D. scholars, two out of whom were at the final pre-submission stage when she was terminated. One of her Scholars requested to change the Guide, it was allowed by the University. When appellant protested, she was asked to resign and her official email and HR access were refused. Her complaint to the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor of the University also received no response.

The appellant was served with a termination letter on 25.10.2025, which was dated 17.10.2025. The letter cited insubordination and major misconduct as the reasons for termination. The University assigned her scholars to a new Supervisor.

The appellant contended that new supervisor was ineligible under the UGC Rules for being a Guide for Ph.D. scholars. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging her termination. A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that her termination from the private University was only a private contractual matter between the employer and the employee. It did not involve any public function amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

It was argued by the appellant that the respondent University is a private University but it is bound by UGC Regulations. A UGC recognized institution is necessarily required to follow and comply with all UGC norms and Regulations governing appointments, service conditions, research supervision, Ph.D. course. It was further argued that there is a pervasive control of statutory authorities on the University, therefore, a writ petition against such University was maintainable.

It was submitted that an institution recognized under the UGC framework, discharges higher public function, therefore, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. Imparting education is a constitutional and public function and, therefore, the teachers and professors do acquire an element of public interest in the performance of their duties.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent University that the determinative test for bringing an entity within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is the existence of deep and pervasive state control in the matters of funding, administration and functional autonomy. Mere regulatory control, statutory recognition or incorporation by statute would not be sufficient to bring it under state as per Article 12 of the Constitution.

Findings And Observations Of The Court

It was noted by the Court that a matter which lies entirely within the private affairs of a public body may not be dealt with under the writ jurisdiction. It was observed that the distinction between the public law and private law elements may be thin but it cannot be eliminated totally.

It was further observed by the Division Bench that a dichotomy between the public law and private law remedies would depend upon the facts of each case. The distinction between the public law remedies and private law field cannot be demarcated with precision.

The case of St. Mary's Education Society Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava was relied upon wherein it was held that an application under Article 226 is maintainable against a body discharging public duties or public functions, but the act complained of must have a direct relation with the discharge of public duty. It was further held that employment matters such as disciplinary action or termination of non-teaching staff, are generally based on a private contract between the employer and employee.

It was further observed that even if an educational institution is imparting public duty, its employees would not have the right to invoke writ jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by statutory provisions.

It was held by the Division Bench that the appellant had been appointed in a private University under certain terms and conditions. Further, that her tenure of guideship was limited to the period till she remained associated as a regular faculty of the University. Therefore, her termination would not fall within the realm of discharge of duty of a public function so as to make it amenable to writ jurisdiction.

With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the appellant professor was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Anjuman Ara Begum Vs. The Assam Royal Global University

Case No. : WA/159/2026

Counsel for the Appellant : U. Chatterjee, Advocate; A.S. Choudhury, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : R.S. Chowdhury, Advocate