[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Shishir Kumar Yadaw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:8212-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 529 of 2025
-----
Dr. Shishir Kumar Yadaw, son of Late Mahadev Prasad Yadaw,
resident of village Kurehera Tejsingh, P.O. Tilkhna, P.S.
Mehnagpur, District Ajamgarh (U.P.)
.......... Appellant.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal
Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town & District Ranchi.
2. Vinoba Bhave University, through its Registrar, Hazaribagh,
P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
3. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), Hazaribagh,
through its Regional Director, Nilkanth Nagar, Bhuvneshwar,
P.O., P.S. & District Bhubneshwar (Orissa).
4. The Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagirathi
Complex, Karam Toli, Ranchi.
5. Sri Ramakrishna Sarada Ashrama, Teacher's Training
College, Rabindra Path, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
6. Governing Body, through its Secretary, Ramakrishna Sarada
Ashrama, Teacher's Training College, Rabindra Path,
Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jay Prakash, AAG-IA
Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA
For Res. No.2 : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Res. No.4 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. D. K. Malityar, Advocate
-----
Order No.02 Date: 24.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This L.P.A. challenges the learned Single Judge's order dated 9 th
June, 2025 dismissing the appellant's W.P.(S) No.2394 of 2021,
on various grounds.
2026:JHHC:8212-DB
3. The impugned order indicates that an objection was raised to
the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the 5 th
respondent, i.e. Sri Ramakrishna Sarada Ashrama, Teacher's
Training College, Hazaribagh, of which the appellant was an
employee and thus questioning his termination from such
employment, was not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India.
4. Though the learned Single Judge did not decide this issue, but
dismissed the petition by observing that there was no illegality
or violation of principles of natural justice involved.
5. In our judgment, before embarking upon the merits of the
matter, an enquiry was necessary as to whether the 5 th
respondent-College answered the definition of 'State' under
Article 12 or there were other factors that would render the 5 th
Respondent amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Mr Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that
the College was affiliated to Vinoba Bhave University, and this
was sufficient to bring it within the ambit of Article 12.
7. Admittedly, this is not a College that receives any financial
support or aid from the University, the State, or any
instrumentalities of the State. There is nothing on record to
show that the State or the University have any deep and
pervasive control over the affairs of this College. There is also
nothing on record to indicate that the appellant's service
conditions are governed or controlled by any statutory
provisions. Therefore, a mere affiliation would not bring this
2026:JHHC:8212-DB
College within the ambit of Article 12 or otherwise render its
action in the realm of a non-statutory contract, amenable to a
challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. In this regard, we refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of St. Mary's Educational
Society & anr v. Rajendra Prasad & ors., reported in
(2023) 4 SCC 498, wherein the Hon'ble Court categorically
held that even if it be assumed that an educational institution is
discharging public duty, the act complained of must have a
direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably
a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to
invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a
prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breaches of mutual
contracts without any public element as an integral part cannot
be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.
9. The Hon'ble Court further held that while a body may be
discharging a public function or performing a public duty and
thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a
Constitutional Court, its employees would not have the right to
invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in
respect of matter relating to service where they are not
governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An
educational institution may perform myriad functions that touch
various facets of public life and the societal sphere. While such
of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public
function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and
2026:JHHC:8212-DB
scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or
decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary
contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot
be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226
of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions
being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter
would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service.
10. On the above short ground, we believe that W.P.(S) No.2394 of
2021 was not maintainable and should have been dismissed
even without going into the merits or demerits of the
termination.
11. For the above reasons, we decline to entertain this appeal and
dismiss it with liberty to the appellant to adopt the ordinary
alternate remedies that may be available to the appellant, if the
appellant so chooses. If the appellant does resort to such
ordinary civil remedies, we clarify that nothing contained in the
impugned order dated 9th June, 2025 or this order, will come in
the appellant's way. All contentions of all parties on the merits
and demerits of the College's action are left open.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order
for costs.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
24th March, 2026
Sanjay/AKT
Uploaded on 25.03.2026
