Writ Jurisdiction Lies Against Private Educational Institutions When Issue Relates To Public Service: MHC Reiterates

In P. Pradeesh Vs The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University & Anr., [W.P. No. 6066 of 2025], the Madras High Court has reiterated that a writ petition lies against private educational institutions when the issue raised in the petition involves public service. The Court placed reliance on St. Mary’s Education Society Vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava [(2023) 4 SCC 498].

CASE SUMMARY

FACTS OF THE CASE:

- The Petitioner is a student pursuing a three-year LLB., course in the 2^nd Respondent private educational institution.

- The Petitioner was charged with certain offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was briefly arrested before being enlarged on bail.

- The 2^nd Respondent sent the impugned communication forwarding the TC (Transfer Certificate) along with other original documents to the Petitioner.

- Aggrieved, the communication sent to the Petitioner was challenged before the Hon’ble Madras High Court.

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:

- No notice was issued to the Petitioner before the impugned communication was sent. Therefore, it was bad in law since principles of natural justice had not been followed.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT:

- Writ Petition does not lie against private educational institution and therefore, the writ Court did not have jurisdiction to intervene. [N. Sivaguru Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 (2) CWC 583].

- Writ Court only had limited jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary action taken against erring students and therefore there is no scope for judicial review in the present matter.

- The Petitioner was already irregular to class and therefore notice had already been issued to the Petitioner. A notice was sent prior to registration of FIR and thereafter to the Petitioner’s father regarding the Petitioner’s long absence.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

Writ Petition was allowed.

REASONS:

- Principles of natural justice had not been followed before sending the impugned communication. The notice already sent to the Petitioner by the 2^nd Respondent pertains to his irregularity before registration of FIR and is not regarding the charges made under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act;

- Writ Court can intervene in disciplinary matters relating to students when principles of natural justice are not followed [Leo Francis Xavious Vs The Principal Karunya Institute of Technology, AIR 1993 Mad 233];

- Writ petition lies against private educational institutions when the issue raised in the petition involves public service [St. Mary’s Education Society Vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498].

DATE OF THE JUDGMENT: 25.08.2025

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: M/s. D. KAMATCHI;

COUNSEL FOR 2^ND RESPONDENT: Mr. A. TAMILVANAN.

[This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.]