IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10500 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHOK KUMAR,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SIVASANKARA KURUP,SOPANAM,POIKATTUSERY, CHENGAMANAD PO,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 683 572. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.N.RAMESH,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SREE NARAYANA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, CHALAKKA,NORTH PARAVOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683513. 2. SREE NARAYANA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, CHALAKKA,NORTH PARAVOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ,REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR 683 513. 3. THE PRINCIPAL,SREE NARAYANA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,CHALAKKA,NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.10500 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an employee of the Sreenarayana Institute of Medical Science, Chalakka, in Ernakulam District. He has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the termination of his service by the respondents. He seeks the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction quashing Exhibit P3 termination letter. B. Issue direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages.” Since I was prima facie of opinion that the respondents being only private establishments, this court cannot issue any writ or direction against the respondents in the matter. The petitioner took time to enlighten this Court as to how this Court can issue the directions sought for against the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relies on paragraph 20 of the decision of the Supreme Court in ANDI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTAJEE VANDAS SWAMI SUVARNA W.P.(C)No.10500/11 2 JAYANTI MAHOTSAV SMARAK TRUST V. V.R. RUDANI [1989(2)SCC 691]. I am of opinion that, that decision is of no help to the petitioner insofar as that decision only says that a mandamus can be issued against a person or body to carry out the duties placed on them by the Statutes even though they are not public officials or statutory body. Here, the Institute is a private self financing College. Of course, that College is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. In respect of service conditions of the petitioner, the respondents are not performing any statutory duties whatsoever. The appointment of the petitioner is not governed by any Statute. The appointment of the petitioner is not expected to be approved by the University or the Government. The service conditions of the petitioner are not governed by any statute also. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that this Court cannot issue any direction sought for by the petitioner against the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.10500/11 3 W.P.(C)No.10500/11 4