WPSB/87/2017
2022 Latest Caselaw 3836 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                              AND
              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ K. TIWARI

                        29TH NOVEMBER, 2022
           WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 87 OF 2017

Between:

Bhupesh Joshi.
                                                                  ...Petitioner

and

Birla Institute of Applied Sciences and others.
                                              ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner.         :   Mr. Shakti Singh, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent nos. 1   :   Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned
and 4.                                  Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil
                                        Upadhyaya, the learned counsel.

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

URGENCY APPLICATION (IA NO. 16529 OF 2022).

              Urgency application is allowed. The Writ Petition

is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties.

WRIT PETITION No. 87 OF 2017

2.            The petitioner has preferred the present Writ

Petition to assail the              orders dated 20.10.2016 and

11.11.2016         passed     by    the     Deputy      Registrar       of   the

respondent no. 1, i.e. the Birla Institute of Applied

Sciences, Bhimtal, District Naintal. The respondent no. 1-

Institute, by the said orders, has terminated the services

of the petitioner.
 3.         The case of the petitioner is that the respondent

no. 1-Institute issued an advertisement on 01.03.2012 for

filling up various faculty positions. The petitioner applied

for the post of Associate Professor in Computer Science

and Engineering Discipline, in response to the said

advertisement.        The   petitioner   was   appointed     on

contractual basis to the said post.


4.            The contractual employment of the petitioner

stands terminated with the issuance of the impugned

orders.   Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ

Petition was preferred by the petitioner in the year 2017,

which has remained pending ever since.


5.         In our view, the present Writ petition, under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be

maintained against the respondent no. 1-Institute, which

is a private Institute.


6.            The submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner,    that   the   respondent   no.   1-Institute   is

discharging public functions and, therefore, it is amenable

to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, cannot be accepted,

since the issue raised by the petitioner emanates from his

contractual employment, and does not, in any way, relate
                               2
 to the public function that the respondent no. 1-Institute

may be discharging.


7.            We, therefore, dismiss the present Writ Petition,

with liberty to the petitioner to pursue such other remedy,

as may be available in law, to raise his grievance against

termination. The period spent by the petitioner before this

Court may be excluded for the purpose of computation of

limitation by the forum before whom fresh proceedings are

instituted.


8.            The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.


9.            Consequently, pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed of.


                                        ________________
                                         VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.


                                       _________________
                                       MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.

Dt: 29th November, 2022 Rahul