Private Hospital Not ‘State’ Under Article 12: P&H High Court Dismisses Writ Against Transfer & Termination as Non-Maintainable

Case Name: Salinder Kumar v. Cygnus Superspeciality Hospital, Kaithal & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 06 April 2026

Citation: CWP-4729-2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a private hospital, not created by statute, not financially or administratively controlled by the State, and not performing functions on behalf of the Government, cannot be treated as “State” under Article 12. Consequently, a writ petition challenging transfer and termination arising out of a private employment contract is not maintainable.

Summary: The petitioner challenged his transfer from Kaithal to Srinagar and subsequent termination from service by a private hospital. He alleged that the transfer was malafide and punitive, and that termination was illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, contending that the hospital is a private entity and not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The Court framed the core issue as whether the respondent hospital qualifies as “State” or “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution.

After an extensive analysis of leading Supreme Court precedents including R.D. Shetty, Ajay Hasia, and Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the Court reiterated the established tests such as statutory origin, financial dependence, monopoly status, deep and pervasive control, nature of functions, and transfer of governmental functions.

Applying these tests, the Court found that the hospital was neither created by statute nor financially dependent on the State. It did not enjoy any monopoly, nor was it subject to deep and pervasive governmental control. Although it performed healthcare services of public importance, such functions were not carried out on behalf of the State.

The Court emphasized that performing a socially important function does not automatically render a private entity amenable to writ jurisdiction. It further relied on precedent holding that private hospitals, even when rendering public services, do not become “State” unless there is substantial governmental control.

Additionally, the Court noted that the dispute arose purely out of a private contract of employment and involved no public law element.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold, holding it to be not maintainable as the respondent hospital is not “State” under Article 12 and the dispute lies in the realm of private law.