Gauhati High Court Affirms Dismissal of Professor's Writ Plea Against Private University Termination

Division Bench holds that a UGC-regulated private university's termination of a professor remains a contractual matter, not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by Anjuman Ara Begum, an Associate Professor terminated from the Assam Royal Global University, affirming that her removal was governed by contract and did not attract Article 226 jurisdiction. Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, leading the bench with Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, delivered the oral judgment on June 22, 2026, in Writ Appeal WA/159/2026. The appeal challenged a March 17, 2026 order of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7101/2025, which had dismissed the appellant's writ petition as not maintainable, holding her termination to be a private affair between employer and employee. The appellant, described in the judgment as a Senior Academic and human rights scholar, argued that the University's disregard of UGC norms in her removal disrupted statutorily regulated Ph.D. supervision and injured third-party research scholars, giving the dispute a public law character.

Termination of a Ph.D. Guide and the Writ Petition

The appellant was appointed Associate Professor at the Royal School of Law and Administration, Assam Royal Global University, in 2022. She completed probation and received salary revisions and performance incentives. In March 2023, she was nominated a Ph.D. Guide. At the time of her termination she was supervising six Ph.D. scholars, two of whom were at the final pre-submission stage.

According to her case, the trouble began when one of her scholars sought a change of Guide, a request the University allowed. When she protested, she was asked to resign, and her official email and HR access were withdrawn. Complaints to the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor drew no response. A termination letter dated October 17, 2025 was served on her on October 25, 2025, citing “insubordination” and “major misconduct.” The University then reassigned her scholars to a new supervisor whom the appellant claims is ineligible under UGC Rules to act as a Ph.D. Guide.

She approached the Single Judge seeking to set aside the termination, reinstatement, protection of her intellectual property rights in the theses she had supervised, and compensation. The Single Judge dismissed the petition solely on the ground of maintainability, holding the dispute to be a private contractual matter falling outside writ jurisdiction.

Whether a UGC-Regulated Private University Is Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction

The issue before the Single Judge, and later before the Division Bench, was narrow but consequential: whether a private university regulated by UGC norms is amenable to writ jurisdiction, and whether the appellant's grievance was confined to a contract of service.

Ms. U. Chatterjee, appearing for the appellant, argued that a UGC-recognised institution is bound to comply with regulations governing appointments, service conditions, research supervision, and academic standards, and that this pervasive statutory control opens the University to writ scrutiny. She submitted that “the correct test is to find out the nexus” between the act complained of and the discharge of a public duty, and that since imparting education is itself a public function, termination of a professor carries a public law element. She relied on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Roychan Abraham v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine All 3935, alongside Supreme Court authorities including Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. S.R.M. University, (2015) 16 SCC 530; K. Krishnamacharyulu v. Shri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering, (1997) 3 SCC 571; and St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498.

Mrs. R.S. Chowdhury, for the University, countered that the determinative test under Article 12 is deep and pervasive state control over funding, administration, and functional autonomy, and that mere regulatory oversight or statutory recognition does not suffice. She argued that termination of an employee of a private university involves no public law element, citing P.K. Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111; Ramakrishna Mission v.