Non-Teaching Staff Of Private Educational Institute Can't Seek Pay Parity With Govt Staff Through Writ Petition: Karnataka High Court

Concerning the maintainability of writ petitions against private educational institutions, the Karnataka High Court has held that private, unaided institutions are not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, and disputes regarding the payment of salary by such institutions are purely contractual matters lacking a 'public law element'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 306]

The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi dismissed two pleas filed by 89 non-teaching staff members of PES Pharmacy College and PES Institute of Technology (led by the Peoples Education Society), seeking a mandamus directing the management to pay salaries on par with Government educational institutions.

“…in the instant case… petitioners submitted that the respondent-University are bound by the Regulations of AICTE and UGC which provides for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staffs. 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”, the court noted in the order.

Relying on various apex court decisions, the court added:

“…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…”

The petitioners were PES Staff who had served between 8 to 27 years in its institutions. They had approached the court seeking directions to Respondents 5 and 6 (the Society and the College) to fix their salaries in the pay scales applicable to employees in corresponding posts in government institutions. Consequently, arrears and consequential benefits were also sought by the petitioners.

To recap, a single bench had allowed the petitions in 2016. However, the Division Bench, in July 2023, set aside that order and remanded the matter back to the single judge for a fresh hearing, directing that the issues be decided without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The court was examining the issue of whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private, unaided as well as a minority educational institution which is not receiving any aid from the government as of now.

Senior Counsel S.N. Murthy for the respondent institutions argued that the petitioners had an efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was iterated by the counsel that the college was a private unaided institution, not discharging any public functions, and was governed by its own regulations under the PES University Act, 2012.

Reliance was also placed in the apex court judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation to argue that minority institutions have the freedom to manage their staff, and that external controlling agencies should not interfere.

Senior Counsel Lakshminarayana, appearing for the staff, contended that the institution is governed by UGC and AICTE Regulations.

The petitioners argued that Rule 3(2) of PES University Rules, 2019 mandate that the salary of other employees shall be on par with the State Government Employees of equivalent rank.

The petitioners further argued that the institution, being a 'private university' under the State enactment, is bound by the regulations and is thus amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The court, while dismissing the petitions, held that the respondents did not qualify as 'State' or 'instrumentality of the State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.

“…Admittedly, the dispute is in regard to the payment of salary between the college/University and non-teaching staff. The dispute is strictly a private contract between the petitioners and the respondents. It is outside the domain of public law…. 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….”, the court pointed out.

The court also went on to distinguish the BCCI judgement [BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors] (2015) ] from the instant case by noting as below:

“…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[quoted from BCCI judgment] ... However, in the instant case[PES University], the respondent University is not discharging any public functions… Admittedly in the instant case the respondent institutions/college are not receiving any grant in aid.”, the court noted.

Further, the Court distinguished the case from Marwari Balika Vidyalaya and Andi Mukta Sadguru Trust, emphasizing that while those cases involved aided institutions or those discharging public functions, the present case involved a purely private, unaided institution.

The Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023), noting that the tests for determining if a body is "State" are not rigid, and merely being regulated by statutes does not transform a private body into a State entity.

“The dispute is strictly a private contract between the petitioners and the respondents. It is outside the domain of public law.” – Justice Ashok S. Kinagi.

The Court also noted that the petitioners had already approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner for relief, and that when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked.

“…As observed above, the petitioners have already approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and exhausted the efficacious remedy 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.”

Hence, the Court dismissed both writ petitions, holding them not maintainable. However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue their grievance before the appropriate authority such as the Industrial Tribunal.

Case Title: Hari Prakash SP & Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case Number: WP No. 805 of 2014 & WP No. 5693 of 2014

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 306

For the Petitioners: Sri V. Lakshminarayana, Senior Counsel (for Smt/Miss Anusha L., Advocate)

For Respondents 5 & 6 (PES Institutions): Sri S.N. Murthy, Senior Counsel (for Sri Somashekar, Advocate)

For Respondent 1 (State): Smt. Mamatha Shetty, AGA

For Respondent 3 (AICTE): Sri Sona M. Badigere, Advocate

For Respondent 4 (Pharmacy Council of India): Sri S.S. Haveri, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order