M.Elavarasi v. The Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR and W.M.P.No.27157 of 2019 Mrs.M.Elavarasi ... Petitioner vs
1. The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Secretary, Sriram Educational Trust, No.49, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3. The Principal, Sriram College of Arts & Science, Perumalpattu - 602 024 Thiruvallur District.
... Respondents 1/9
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Cetriorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.08.2019 in proceedings No.0704/SRET/2019 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the service as the Assistant Professor in the third respondent College and to pay salary from September 2019. For Petitioner : Mr.M.MD.Ibrahim Ali For Respondents : Mr.C.Guathamaraj Government Advocate for R1 : Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy for R2 & R3
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second and third respondents and perused the records.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she is appointed in the third respondent College as Lecturer in Computer Science Department on 16.06.2008 and was removed from service on 30.08.2019 vide proceedings 2/9
No.0704/SRET/2019, which action of the respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary. Thus, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the third respondent to take the petitioner into service as Assistant Professor and pay salary from September, 2019 onwards.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable at all, since, the second respondent/Institution cannot be considered as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to be amenable to Writ Jurisdiction.
4. In support of the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, placed reliance on the following Judgments: (i) 2016 SCC Online SC 743 in the case of Committee of Management, La Martiniere College Lucknow, Thr. its Principal and Anr. Vs. Vatsal Gupta and Ors.
3/9
(ii) 2018 SCC Online Cal 12685 in the case of Srikanta Maity Vs. State of West Bengal and Others.
(iii) 2019 (7) SCC 513 in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Others.
(iv) 2023 (4) SCC 498 in the case of St.Mary's Education Society and another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others.
(v) 2024 SCC Online SC 1683 in the case of Army Welfare Education Society New Delhi Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma and Others.
5. I have taken note of the respective contentions.
6. Admittedly, the second and third respondents are not State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the petitioner to invoke the Writ jurisdiction assailing the action of the third respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner by the impugned proceedings dated 30.08.2019. Since the second and third respondents cannot be considered as State under 4/9
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the dispute between the petitioner and the second and third respondents would be a dispute in private domain and the action of the second respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner, cannot be considered as in relation to public duty for the petitioner to approach this Court.
7. Further, it is to be noted that the Apex Court in the case of St. Marys Education Society and another v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others ((2023) 4 SCC 498), had dealt with the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held that the power can be exercised, even if body against which action is sought, is not "State" or instrumentality of "State", provided there is public element in action complained of.
8. As noted herein above, since, the dispute between the petitioner and the second and third respondents being in relation to employment, the same 5/9
cannot be considered as involving public element for the petitioner to maintain the present Writ Petition.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of the view, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is misconceived.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
27.10.2025 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No : Yes / No dh 6/9
To
1. The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Secretary, Sriram Educational Trust, No.49, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3. The Principal, Sriram College of Arts & Science, Perumalpattu - 602 024 Thiruvallur District.
7/9
T. VINOD KUMAR , J.
dh W.P.No.27635 of 20 8/9
27.10.2025 9/9