1. The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) by Additional Director of respondent no.3 Institute thereby terminating his service in terms of Clause vii of his order of appointment dated 11.10.2013.

2. The respondents have filed the return wherein a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition against the respondent no.3 Institute, which is a self-financed educational private institute, has been raised and vehemently argued by their learned counsel. The arguments are accordingly heard on preliminary objection as also on merits.

3. The learned counsel for respondents argued that respondent no.3- Rustamji Institute of Technology (RJIT), is an Engineering College established by Society run by Boarder Security Force with an object to provide education to the wards of BSF & CAPF personnel. It is an unaided private education institute and is recognized as private self-financed institute as per AICTE norms. The Institute is affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (RGPV), Bhopal. It is his submission that the State/Central Govt. has no control over the affairs of the Institute, particularly over the service dispute of its staff. Thus, the Institute, being a self-financed private educational institute, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. As per his submission, the Institute does not fall in the definition of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he relied upon order passed by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar vs. State of M.P. & ors. in W.P. No.35484 of 2024 wherein this Court upheld the preliminary objection in relation to respondent no.3. He thus prayed for dismissal of writ petition as not maintainable.

4. Refuting the submission made by respondents' counsel, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent no.3 Institute is an aided institution as is evident from document filed as Annexure P/2. He submitted that service conditions of petitioner are governed by Statute 30 of Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (College Code Statute), 2007 (in short 'College Code'). It is his submission that the College Code has been made by State Govt. in exercise of powers under RGPV Adhiniyam, 1998 and, therefore, respondent no.3 is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. He also argued that the petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor (Information Technology) vide order, dated 11.10.2013 and was discharging his work on the said post efficiently and honestly. However, on the basis of petty allegations, which are not existing in the facts of the case, he has been terminated from service. He argued that the action of respondent no.3 is ex-facie illegal and is in violation of principles of natural justice. He thus prayed for interference by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for respondents in his turn refuted the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and argued that the impugned order has been passed on account of certain acts of misconduct committed by petitioner. It is his submission that show cause notice was duly served to the petitioner and after taking his explanation, the impugned order is passed. He thus submitted that requirement of principles of natural justice has been duly satisfied. He submitted that no interference is warranted by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

7. As seen from order, dated 25.05.2024 (Annexure R/2) issued by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), the respondent no.3 is recognized as a 'Private Self Financing Institute. The petitioner has though stated in writ petition that respondent no.3 is an aided institute based upon document filed as Annexure P/2, however, the same is specifically denied by the respondents and have made specific averment that the Institute is self-financed institute and meets all its operational and administrative expenditures from fee collected from students. It is averred in the return that the Institute do not receive any amount or financial aid from Govt. Considering the aforesaid, particularly in view of the document filed as Annexure R/2 which is an order of extension of approval issued by AICTE and the document filed as Annexure R/4 which is the copy of official website of RGPV, wherein the respondent no.3 is shown as Private Self-Financed institute, it is held that respondent no.3 is an unaided self-financed educational institute.

8. The petitioner has challenged order, dated 08.11.2025, wherein he has been terminated from service on the basis of certain allegations. The learned counsel for petitioner argued on the correctness of these allegations also, however, the submissions can be considered only when the petition is found to be maintainable. Therefore, the issue regarding maintainability of writ petition needs to be considered first.

9. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that the petition against respondent no.3 is maintainable because the petitioner's service conditions are governed by Statute 30 of College Code. It is seen that College Code is framed by State Govt. in exercise of powers under Section 38 read with Section 37 of RGPV Adhiniyam, 1998. A copy of College Code is filed as Annexure P/3. As per Clause 3, the College Code is applicable to all the Colleges admitted to the privileges of the University except the colleges maintained or managed by State Govt. or a Municipal Corporation or the University. Clause 4 provides for formation of a Foundation Society of a College which shall be responsible for providing necessary funds for maintenance and upkeep of college up to the standard required by University. Clause 8 of College Code mandates that the Foundation Society of every college shall carry out all directions of University and maintain and run the college in accordance with RGPV Adhiniyam and the Statute, Ordinance and Regulations. Clause 9 thereof provides that the Executive Council of University may take action, including withdrawal of affiliation of college, in case the Foundation Society fails to meet all or any of its obligations as laid down in the code.

10. Clause 12 of College Code provides for constitution of Governing Body of the College. As per Clause 12(14)(a)(iv), the power to appoint, promote, suspend and punish teachers of the college and to take any other action affecting their services, is with the Governing Body. Further, under Clause 14, the Governing Body is empowered to make rules consistent with the provisions of Adhiniyam, Statute, Ordinance.

11. Clause 20 of College Code provides for the procedure for appointment of teacher in the college whereas Chapter VI, Clause 34 to 36 provides for procedure for taking disciplinary action against the teachers of the college.

12. From examination of provisions of College Code, it is seen that the University has no direct control in the matter of appointment and/or taking disciplinary action against the teachers of the college. The issue thus arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent no.3 would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court only because it is governed by College Code?

13. Clause 2(p) of College Code provides that "the words and expression used but not defined in this statute shall have the meaning as assigned to them in the Adhiniyam". Section 2(b) of RGPV Adhiniyam, 1998 defines "Executive Council to mean the executive council of the Vishwavidyalaya". Part V of the College Code deals with Teachers of the College and Clause 24(3)(i) thereof provides that every teacher, other than the teacher appointed on part time or temporary basis, shall be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed in the Appendix.

14. Part VI of College Code deals with suspension, penalties and disciplinary authority. Clause 34 thereof deals with suspension while Clause 35 provides for the penalties which may be imposed on an employee, including a teacher of the college, for good and sufficient reasons. Clause 35(3) is relevant which provides that no order imposing any of the penalties shall be made expect in accordance with the procedure for imposing penalties on Govt. servant prescribed by the Madhya Pradesh Govt. and in force at the time the appointing authority orders an enquiry against the college employee concerned. Clause 35(4) thereafter prescribes the lapses which may constitute misconduct.

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of College Code, the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh vs. A.L. Pande reported in 1965 SCC OnLine SC 86 needs to be examined as this judgment is rendered on somewhat similar facts and legal provisions. The appellant before Apex Court was a Lecturer in a college run by the charitable trust which was affiliated to Saugar University under the provisions of University of Saugar Act, 1946 and was managed by Governing Body established under the College Code which is an Ordinance made under the provisions of Act. To show the similarity of facts of the case before Apex Court and the case in hand, the observations on facts and the law laid down by Apex Court is reproduced in extenso as under:

          "2. The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit in the year 1955 in the S.B.R. College (Sheobhagwan Rameswarlal Arts College), Bilaspur and he was confirmed in that post in the year 1957. The College is affiliated to the University of Saugar under the provisions of the University of Saugar Act 1946 (hereinafter called "the Act") and is managed by the governing body established under clause 3 of the "College Code" which is an Ordinance made under the provisions of the Act. The College is maintained out of the funds of Sheobhagwan Rameswarlal Charitable Trust, Bilaspur and is aided by the State Government. On June 2, 1960 the Principal of the College served the appellant, by post, a charge-sheet consisting of three charges and the appellant was asked to submit explanation within a weeks time. The charges were as follows:

          "(1) That you have deliberately based your representation dated 28-12-1959 on false facts and mis-statements and have committed acts of insubordination amounting to misconduct by making counter-charges against the Governing Body.

          (2) That you have not been taking active interest in the extra- curricular activities of the College and have failed to cooperate with the authorities as required by the conditions of service.

          (3) That you have deliberately avoided to execute your service bond which every teacher of the institution is required to do. This non-fulfilment of the conditions of your appointment order No. FC/56-57 dated 1-7-1956 amounts to breach of the service rules of the college."

          The appellant submitted explanation denying all the charges and requested the Governing Body to supply particulars on which the first charge was based. The allegation of the appellant is that he was not supplied with the required particulars and that the Governing Body terminated the services of the appellant with effect from July 1, 1960 without holding any enquiry. The appellant made a representation to the Governing Body on July 5, 1960 requesting it to reconsider the whole matter. The Governing Body rejected this representation also. The appellant thereafter moved the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh for grant of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Governing Body dated June 30, 1960 terminating the services of the appellant, and also for the grant of a writ of mandamus reinstating the appellant to his post as a confirmed Lecturer of the College. The case of the appellant was that the Governing Body had made the order of discharge in violation of the provisions of clause 8(vi)(a) of the 'College Code' and that the order of the Governing Body was, therefore, ultra vires and illegal. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground that the conditions of service of the appellant were governed not by the "College Code" but by the contract made between the Governing Body and the appellant. The High Court also took the view that provisions of the "College Code" were merely conditions prescribed for affiliation of colleges and no legal rights were created by the "College Code" in favour of lecturers of the affiliated colleges as against the Governing Body. In taking this view the High Court followed its previous decision in Vedraj Bhawanidas Dua v. Damoh Arts College [1991 MP LJ 239] in which it was held that the "College Code" being merely conditions prescribed for affiliating colleges, the University may at its option enforce or relax those conditions and the only sanction for fulfilment of those conditions is disaffiliation. The High Court accordingly did not go into the question whether the Governing Body had violated the procedure prescribed in clause 8(vi)(a) but dismissed the application of the appellant for the grant of writ on the ground that it was only breach of contract and the proper recourse of the petitioner was to bring a suit in the civil court for damages for wrongful breach of contract and the appellant cannot avail himself of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.

          3. The main question presented for determination in this case is whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the "College Code" merely prescribed conditions for affiliation of colleges and no legal rights were created by the "College Code" with regard to teachers of affiliated colleges.

          4. Section 2(a) of the Act defines a "college" to mean "an institution maintained by or admitted to the privileges of the University, by or under the provisions of this Act". Section 6 of the Act refers to the powers of the University and Section 6(6) provides that the University shall have the power "to admit colleges to the privileges of the University and to recognise hostels under conditions which may be prescribed in the statutes or ordinances". Section 32 deals with ordinances and is to the following effect:

          "32. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the statutes and in addition to all matters which, by this Act or the statutes, are to be provided for by the Ordinances, the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:

          (a) the admission of students to the University;

          (b) the courses of study to be laid down for all degrees and diplomas of the University;

          (c) the conditions under which students shall be admitted to the degree or diploma courses and to the examinations of the University and shall be eligible for degrees and diplomas;

          (d) the levying of fees for residence in hostels maintained by the University;

          (e) the fees to be charged for the enrolment of students, for attending courses of teaching in the University, for admission to the examinations, degrees and diplomas of the University and for the registration of graduates;

          (f) the conditions subject to which persons may be recognised as qualified to give instruction in the University and colleges;

          (g) the conduct of examinations;

          (h) the term of office, duties and conditions of service of officers and teachers of the University insofar as these are, by or under this Act, subject to the Executive Council."

          Section 24(i) provides that the Executive Council shall admit colleges to the privileges of the University subject to the provisions of this Act and such conditions as may be prescribed in the statutes. The "College Code" is an Ordinance made under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act read with Section 6(6) of the Act and clause 8 of the Ordinance deals with conditions of service of teachers of affiliated colleges. Clause 8(vi) of the "College Code" reads as follows:

          "8. (vi) The Governing Body of the College shall not terminate the service or reduce the pay of any teacher confirmed in the service of the college:

          (a) Without holding a full enquiry into the matter, the teacher concerned shall be given in writing a statement of charges against him and afforded every possible opportunity of defending himself. His previous service and character shall also be taken into consideration;

          (b) No decision for such termination of service, or reduction of pay shall have any effect unless passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Governing Body;

          (c) At the request of the teacher concerned any difference or dispute either arising out of the contract, or, otherwise, shall be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, and two other persons appointed by the Executive Council of the University, one of whom shall possess a status not lower than that of a District Judge. The decision of this Tribunal shall be final and binding on both the parties."

          Clause 7 of the "College Code" states that all teachers of the colleges shall be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed in Schedule A except in the case of teachers appointed temporarily for a period of one year or less. Para 9 of this agreement mentioned in Schedule A provides as follows:

          "9. After confirmation, the services of the party of the first part can be terminated only on the following grounds:

          a. Wilful and persistant neglect of duty,

          b. Misconduct,

          c. Breach of any of the terms of contract,

          d. Physical or mental unfitness,

          e. Incompetence,

          f. Abolition of the posts:

          Provided firstly, that the plea of incompetence shall not be used against the party of the first part after he has served the party of the second part for five years or more:

          Provided, secondly, the services of the party of the first part shall not be terminated under clause (c) or (f) without the previous approval of Saugar University."

          5. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the "College Code" has been made by the University in exercise of statutory power conferred by Section 32 and under Section 6(6) of the Act. It is also conceded on behalf of the respondents that the "College Code" is intra vires of the powers of the University contained in Section 32 read with Section 6(6) of the Act. In our opinion, the provisions of Ordinance 20, otherwise called the "College Code" have the force of law. It confers legal rights on the teachers of the affiliated colleges and it is not a correct proposition to say that the "College Code" merely regulates the legal relationship between the affiliated colleges and the University alone. We do not agree with the High Court that the provisions of the "College Code" constitute power of management. On the contrary we are of the view that the provisions of the "College Code" relating to the pay scale of teachers and their security of tenure properly fall within the statutory power of affiliation granted to the University under the Act. It is true that clause 7 of the Ordinance provides that all teachers of affiliated colleges shall be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed in Schedule A but that does not mean that teachers have merely a contractual remedy against the Governing Body of the College. On the other hand, we are of opinion that the provisions of clause 8 of the Ordinance relating to security of the tenure of teachers are part and parcel of the teachers, service conditions and, as we have already pointed out, the provisions of the "College Code" in this regard are validly made by the University in exercise of the statutory power and have, therefore, the force and effect of law. It follows, therefore, that the "College Code" creates legal rights in favour of teachers, of affiliated colleges and the view taken by the High Court is erroneous."

16. It is thus seen that the provisions of College Code in this case are very much similar to the College Code in the aforesaid case before Apex Court. It is also noted that the judgment in the case of A.L. Pande (supra) was distinguished on facts by Apex Court in subsequent decision in the case of Vidya Ram Misra vs. Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College reported in (1972)1 SCC 623. The relevant observations of Apex Court are as under:

          "9. Mr Setalvad contended that since the college in question is affiliated to a statutory body, namely, the University of Lucknow, and is governed by the relevant statutes and ordinances framed under the provisions of Lucknow University Act, 1920, any violation of the statute or the ordinance in the matter of terminating the services of a teacher would attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as statutes and ordinances have the force of law. In support of this, counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A.L. Pande. [(1965) 2 SCR 713] The appellant before this Court in that case was a teacher in a collage affiliated to the University of Saugar and managed by the Governing Body established under the provisions of the relevant ordinance made under the University of Saugar Act. Certain charges were framed against the appellant by the Principal of the College and he was asked to submit his explanation. The appellant in his explanation denied all the charges and requested for particulars on which one of the charges was based. The particulars were not supplied and the Governing Body terminated his services without holding any enquiry. The appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order of the Governing Body and for his reinstatement. He contended that the Governing Body had made the order in violation of the provisions of Ordinance 20, otherwise called the "College Code", framed under Section 32 of the University of Saugar Act read with Section 6(6) of that Act. Clauses 8(vi)(a) of the College Code provided that the Governing Body of the college shall not terminate the services of a confirmed teacher without holding an enquiry and without giving him an opportunity of defending himself. The High Court held that the conditions of service of the appellant were governed not by the "College Code" but by the contract made between the Governing Body and the appellant under clause 7 of the College Code -- which stated that all teachers of the college shall be appointed under a written contract in the form prescribed, that the provisions of the "College Code" were merely conditions prescribed for affiliation of colleges and that no legal rights were created by the "College Code" in favour of the teachers of the affiliated colleges as against the Governing Body. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the petition. In appeal to this Court it was held that the "College Code" had the force of law and that it not merely regulated the legal relationship between the affiliated colleges and the University but also conferred legal rights on the teachers of affiliated colleges. The Court further said:

          "It is true that clause 7 of the Ordinance provides that all teachers of affiliated college shall be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed in Schedule A but that does not mean that teachers have merely a contractual remedy against the Governing Body of the College. On the other hand, we are of opinion that the provisions of clause 8 of the Ordinance relating to security of the tenure of teachers are part and parcel of the teachers' service conditions...."

          When once this Court came to the conclusion that the "College Code" had the force of law and conferred rights on the teachers of affiliated colleges, the right to challenge the order terminating the services of the appellant, passed in violation of clause 3(vi)(a) of the College Code in a proceeding under Article 226 followed "as the night the day" and the fact that the appellant had entered into a contract was considered as immaterial.

          10. In the case in hand, the position is entirely different. The relevant statutes governing this case are Statutes 151, 152 and 153, framed under the provisions of the Lucknow University Act, 1920. Statute 151 provides that teachers of an Associated College including the principal shall be appointed on written contract and that the contract shall inter alia provide the conditions mentioned therein in addition to such other conditions not inconsistent with the Act and the Statutes as an Associated College may include in its own form of agreement. Then the conditions as regards salary, age of retirement etc., are enumerated. The statute then goes on to specify the grounds on which a teacher's services can be terminated. Statute 152 states that the form of agreement to be adopted by each college shall be approved by the Executive Council before it is put in force. Statute 153 provides for a form of agreement which shall serve as a model. It may be noted that Statute 151 does not provide for any particular procedure for dismissal or removal of a teacher for being incorporated in the contract. Nor does the model form of contract lay down any particular procedure for that purpose. The appellant had entered into an agreement when he was employed in the college. Clause 5 of the agreement provided that:

          "the period of probation shall be one year unless extended by the Managing Committee and the College may at any time during the said period of probation put an end to this engagement, or if service shall continue beyond the said term, at any time thereafter, dispense with the services of the said Lecturer without notice, if the Managing Committee of the said College is satisfied that it is necessary to remove the said Lecturer for misconduct, insubordination or habitual neglect of duty on the part of the said Lecturer or in case any of the conditions herein specified have been broken by the said Lecturer provided that an opportunity is given to him by the said Managing Committee to give his explanation before a decision is arrived at."

17. The judgment in the case of A.L. Pande (supra), is followed by Apex Court subsequently in the case of Vidya Dhar Pande vs. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti reported in (1988)4 SCC 734.

18. The judgment rendered in the case of A.L. Pande (supra) has been referred in recent judgments of Apex Court in the case of St. Mary's Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava reported in (2023)4 SCC 498 and again in the case of Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma reported in (2024)16 SCC 598. It has been distinguished on facts but its ratio still holds the field.

19. The order passed by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) is of no help to the respondents apparently because all the aforesaid provisions of College Code were not brought to the notice of this Court. As observed in para 2 of the order, the petitioner's counsel was not in a position to refute the objections raised by respondent and accordingly the objection was upheld. Thus, in view of Apex Court judgment in the case of A.L. Pande (supra), the writ petition is held to be maintainable.

20. Coming on the merits of the case, it is seen that the petitioner was initially appointed in RJIT as Lecturer on 01.07.2005. He was thereafter appointed on 06.07.2010 in J.P. University, Guna where he joined on 13.07.2010. The petitioner was again appointed in RJIT as Associate Professor (IT) on 11.10.2013. He joined on 20.12.2013 and was subsequently confirmed in service in the year 2015.

21. It is gathered that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.09.2025 (Annexure P/8) to which he submitted reply on 08.10.2025 (Annexure P/9). Yet another show cause notice was issued to him on 14.10.2025 (Annexure P/10) which was replied by petitioner on 28.10.2025 (Annexure P/11). Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 08.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) came to be passed whereby his services have been terminated. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the same is stigmatic and, therefore, could not have been passed without conducting enquiry as contemplated in Clause 35(3) of College Code. The impugned order thus suffers from inherent illegality and is found to have been passed in violation of Clause 35(3) of College Code and thus the principals of natural justice have also been violated.

22. Consequently, the impugned order, dated 08.11.2025, (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The respondent no.3 is directed to reinstate the petitioner on his post. The matter is relegated to competent authority of respondent no.3 to take action afresh in accordance with provisions of College Code.

23. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed off.