Writ maintainability against a private employer fails where no public duty exists and the entity is outside Article 12.

Writ jurisdiction against a private company is confined to cases involving a public duty or public function, so employment-related claims against a purely commercial entity do not ordinarily attract Article 226. The article notes that although the petition was filed when the employer was a State instrumentality, the subsequent takeover by a private entity could not be ignored where the respondent no longer fell within Article 12. It also explains that later events may inform moulding of relief, but cannot create writ maintainability where none exists. Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was held inapplicable to a writ proceeding, while a civil suit remained available and Section 14 of the Limitation Act could protect time spent in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging disciplinary action against an employee of a former State-owned company remained maintainable after the company ceased to be a State instrumentality and was taken over by a private entity; whether the change in the respondent's status could be ignored by applying the doctrine that rights crystallise on the date of institution; and whether writ relief could be issued against a private company to enforce employment-related claims.

Analysis: The petition was filed when the employer was a State instrumentality, but during pendency the undertaking was merged and the contesting respondent became a private company not falling within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that Article 226 is wide but not unlimited, and writ jurisdiction against a private body is confined to cases involving a public duty or public function. The respondent's business was held to be purely commercial and unconnected with any public duty. The Court further held that subsequent events could be relevant where relief is to be moulded, but they could not justify issuance of a writ against a private entity where no writ would lie. Reliance on Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not assist the petitioner because the proceeding was a writ petition against a private company, not a civil action capable of continuance on assignment of interest. The Court also observed that a civil suit remained available as an alternative forum, and that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could protect the time spent in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held not maintainable against the private respondent company and the preliminary objection was upheld.

---