Devendra Prasad Singh vs B.R.A. Bihar University and Others

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—This is an application seeking direction to the respondents to declare that the petitioner was appointed against third sanctioned post in the Department of Sociology in Nirsoo Narain College, Singhara, Vaishali. The petitioner also seeks a declaration from this court to the effect that respondent No. 7, Prof. Surendra Kumar Suman was appointed illegally on non-sanctioned post in the Department of Sociology in the said College. The said Nirsoo Narain College, Singhara, Vaishali is admittedly an institution affiliated to B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. It is the petitioner''s claim that pursuant to an advertisement, he was appointed as Lecturer in the said College in the year 1995. His grievance is that he is not getting benefits of the grant released by the State Government to the affiliated colleges because he is not being treated to have been appointed against third sanctioned post of Lecturer in Department of Sociology.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-College, at the very outset, has raised preliminary objection over maintainability of the writ application and has contended that the college in question is managed and maintained by Governing Body and is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He contends that the college in question is, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in Smt. Radha Kumari Singh Vs. The Governing Body of Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalaya and Others, in support of his submission that the college being a private college, no writ of mandamus in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued. He has also relied upon a recent judgment of this court reported in Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others to submit that the college being a privately managed college is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

In reply to this preliminary objection, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the college imparts education which falls within public domain and submits, accordingly, that it is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction. He has also relied upon Section 59(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1996, which deals with relation of affiliated college with the University with respect to creation of post of teachers, their appointments, dismissal, discharge or removal from service, termination of service etc.

From the pleadings in the writ application, it is evident that the petitioner seeks a direction to the Governing Body of the College, as admittedly he was appointed by the Governing Body of the College as Lecturer, to the effect that he should be treated to have been appointed against third sanctioned post of Lecturer of Sociology. From the pleadings of the writ application, it is evident that petitioner has raised no grievance against the University or the State of Bihar. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has sought for no direct relief against the State respondents except that the petitioner has sought direction to take suitable action against erring officers.

I find substance in submission made on behalf of the college, while placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra), paragraph 9 of which reads as follows:--

"9. In the case before us, Mr. Kailash Roy could not point out infraction of any statutory provision having the force of law by the Governing Body, in the order terminating the services of the petitioner for which any writ could issue by this Court. Therefore, unless there was an element of public employment or service, having support of any statute, or an office or status capable of protection, no writ can be issued against respondent No. 1 simply because it happened to be an affiliated college to the Magadh University."

Learned counsel for the respondent-College is also appears to be right in his submission, while placing reliance upon a recent order of this court in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta (supra) that the writ application raising grievance against managing committee of an affiliated college is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.