Contractual termination by health institute cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction: Raj HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging termination of service by a society-run health management institute, holding that a purely contractual service dispute lacking any public law element is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Praveer Bhatnagar in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10690/2008, Atal Khandelwal vs Institute of Health Management Research & Ors., pronounced on 17.02.2026. The petitioner had assailed the order dated 19.07.2008 terminating his services and sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

At the outset, the Court considered a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The petitioner contended that the respondent Institute of Health Management Research, being engaged in the field of public health management and policy support, discharges public functions and therefore falls within the scope of “other authority” under Article 12, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on decisions including Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691, Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015) 16 SCC 530, Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649 and Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 10 SCC 733.

The respondents opposed the petition, submitting that respondent No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and not a statutory body. It was argued that mere discharge of public functions does not ipso facto render a society “State” within the meaning of Article 12. Reliance was placed on Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82 to contend that in the absence of statutory creation or effective governmental control, such a body would not fall within Article 12.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 INSC 501, where it was held that even if an institution imparts education and thereby performs a public duty, disputes arising out of a private contract of service between the institution and its employees do not involve a public law element and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court also relied upon St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023) 4 SCC 498, wherein it was held that while actions of bodies performing public functions may be open to judicial review, service matters arising solely from ordinary contracts of employment without statutory backing cannot be challenged under Article 226.

Applying the aforesaid principles, the Court observed that the petitioner’s challenge arose from a service relationship between him and the respondent institute. The lis was essentially contractual and private in nature, without any demonstrable public law element. The Court held that even assuming the institute performed public functions in the field of education or health management, the termination of an employee governed by a private contract does not attract writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed in limine on the ground of maintainability. All pending applications also stood disposed of. No order as to costs was passed.

Case Title
Atal Khandelwal vs Institute of Health Management Research & Ors.

Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10690/2008

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar

Date of Pronouncement
17/02/2026

Advocates
For Petitioner: Mr. Ishaan Khandelwal
For Respondents: Mr. Rachit Sharma

Judgments Relied Upon
Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 2024 INSC 501
St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023) 4 SCC 498
Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82
Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691
Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015) 16 SCC 530
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas (2003) 10 SCC 733