Introduction

The judgment in the case of Nirmala College through its Secretary, Governing Body, Nirmala College, Sister Sushma Beck v. State of Jharkhand (2025:JHHC:10469-DB) addresses complex issues about the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the context of a private minority educational institution that receives state aid and operates in affiliation with a state university.

The core dispute arises from alleged wrongful conduct by the college in initiating disciplinary proceedings against a teacher (writ petitioner/respondent no. 4) without securing the mandatory approval of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) as required under Section 57A(1) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 and relevant statutory provisions. The college argued that it was not a “State” or “authority” under Article 12 and hence the writ petition was non-maintainable, while the petitioner contended that the public element inherent in the granting of grant-in-aid, regulation by the University Grants Commission, and pervasive state control made the college amenable to judicial review.

This judgment not only clarifies the applicability of Article 12 and Article 226 in relation to private minority institutions but also focuses on the significance of obtaining the JPSC approval at the pre-requisite stage of disciplinary proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Jharkhand High Court considered the intra-court appeal filed by Nirmala College against an earlier order which upheld the maintainability of the writ petition filed by a teacher challenging her termination.

The Court deliberated on whether Nirmala College, a minority educational institution that receives state grant-in-aid and operates under state regulatory mechanisms, falls within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. A critical statutory provision at the heart of the matter is Section 57A(1) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, which mandates that disciplinary actions (e.g., dismissal) in affiliated minority colleges are to be taken “with the approval of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.”

In its decision, the Court rejected the argument that the college was a purely private entity. Instead, it held that due to the pervasive control exerted by both the University and the State – as reflected in grant-in-aid, statutory regulation under the UGC Act, and prescribed governance arrangements (Statute 32) – the college does indeed qualify as an “authority” serving a public purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s reasoning was supported by references to several important precedents:

• St. Mary's Education Society & Ors v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors: This case was invoked by the appellant to argue that a private institution might not be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 unless a public element is present. However, the Court clarified that in cases where funding and control mechanisms reveal state participation, the institution becomes an “authority.”
• Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors: Also relied upon by the appellant, this precedent was discussed in contrast with more recent decision-making regarding the scope of control and regulatory oversight of educational institutions.
• Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava & Ors: This judgment was crucial in explaining that even where there is a minority element, if the regulatory mechanism mandates approval from a constitutionally empowered body (like the JPSC), the institution falls under public law jurisdiction.
• Additionally, the judgment referenced matters from industrial disputes and land acquisition jurisprudence (including U.P. Avas Evem Vikas Parishad cases) to underscore the judicial interpretation of “approval” requirements – contrasting “prior” approval with that given contemporaneously during disciplinary proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning revolved around the interpretation of statutory provisions and the application of constitutional principles:

• Authority under Article 12: The Court determined that Nirmala College, though privately registered under the Society Registration Act, is functionally controlled by the State due to its grant-in-aid status, affiliation to Ranchi University, regulation under the UGC Act, and adherence to Statute 32. These factors cumulatively convert a nominally private institution into one that is “an instrumentality of the State,” and hence, subject to the ambit of Article 12.
• Mandatory JPSC Approval Requirement: Section 57A(1), as interpreted by the Court, explicitly mandates that disciplinary actions (and in particular, the termination of service) must be taken “with the approval of the JPSC.” The Court rejected the notion that such approval could be sought post facto—i.e., after the disciplinary process has been concluded. The approval is integral to the decision-making process.
• Public Element and Judicial Review: By contrasting its reasoning with the cited case law, the Court stressed that the public element is present when state funds, statutory qualifications, and administrative controls converge. In this instance, the interplay between college autonomy and state regulation necessitates judicial intervention.

Impact on Future Cases and the Relevant Area of Law

This judgment is likely to have significant implications:

• Expanded Scope of Judicial Review: Future cases involving private minority institutions that receive state aid and are subject to regulatory oversight may also be considered amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
• Clarification on Approval Procedures: Institutions must adhere strictly to the statutory requirement of obtaining the JPSC’s approval at the appropriate stage in the disciplinary process. Any deviation from this requirement could render disciplinary actions vulnerable to judicial quashing.
• Precedent for Balancing Private Autonomy with Public Accountability: The judgment provides guidance on balancing the fundamental right to challenge administrative decisions against the backdrop of private autonomy—especially in institutions with a significant public financing element.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal terms and principles in the judgment are clarified for better understanding:

• Article 12 of the Constitution: This article defines what constitutes “the State.” In this judgment, the Court explains that even institutions that are privately registered may be brought under the purview of Article 12 if they are substantially controlled or funded by the state.
• Article 226 and Judicial Review: This article empowers the High Courts to review actions of public authorities. Here, it is used to ensure that the disciplinary process within the college complies with constitutional mandates.
• “With the Approval” vs. “Prior Approval”: The Court emphasizes that the statutory language requires that disciplinary actions, such as dismissals, must be taken with the simultaneous approval of the JPSC. This is not a formality that can be regularized after the fact.

Conclusion

In summary, the judgment is a landmark decision that expands judicial oversight over privately managed minority institutions that are substantially state-controlled. By holding that Nirmala College comes under the ambit of Article 12 due to its grant-in-aid status, regulatory framework, and pervasive interlinkage with state mechanisms, the Court has clarified that the institution is an “authority” amenable to judicial review under Article 226.

The requirement for obtaining “with the approval of the JPSC” in disciplinary matters is a non-negotiable statutory prerequisite. Failure to secure such approval at the mandated stage undermines the legality of disciplinary proceedings and reinforces the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

This decision not only reinforces the accountability of educational institutions but is also set to influence future disputes where the public element in private institutions is the central issue in securing justice under constitutional writs.