1. This is an application for a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents for appointing the petitioner as a lecturer in the Sanskrit Department of the Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalaya Arrah, an aided college after quashing the appointment of respondent No. 2 in pursuance of a resolution of the Governing Body of the said College.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed temporarily a lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit by the Governing Body of the College by the letter dated 19-9-1972 (Annexure 1). The Governing Body, however, issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up the said post on a permanent basis. The petitioner and the aforesaid respondent No. 2 both were interviewed by the University Service Commission and the name of the petitioner was recommended along with the name of respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 by the University Service Commission for the post of a lecturer in the Gautam Budha Mahila College, Gaya as well as for the College in question. But by its resolution already referred to, respondent No. 2 was appointed on terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 11-2-1975. The order was communicated to the petitioner by Memo No. 375 (3) dated 10-2-1975 (Annexure 3) by respondent No. 1 which is under challenge.

3. It is not disputed that Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Arrah is a private College affiliated to the Magadh University and the petitioner by the present application wants a writ of the nature stated above from this Court against the Governing Body of the College.

4. Mr. Tarkeshwar Dayal, appearing for contesting respondent No. 2 aforesaid raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this application and grant of the relief on the ground that no writ would lie against respondent No. 1, as it was not a statutory body covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention counsel cited and if we may say so a direct authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Ram Misra V/s. Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College, (AIR 1972 SC 1450). In that case the services of a lecturer appointed by the Managing Committee of Jai Narain College, Lucknow (formerly known as Kanyakubja Degree College), an associated College of the Lucknow University were terminated by the Managing Committee of the College. He filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) challenging the validity of the resolution of the Managing Committee in question. The learned single Judge, however, decided the matter in favour of the petitioner, but on appeal a Division Bench dismissed the writ application holding that the remedy of the appellant was to file a suit for damages inasmuch as, the relationship between the College and the lecturer was that of only a master and servant. When the matter went to the Supreme Court, the view of the Division Bench was affirmed and it was specially laid down that services of a lecturer appointed by reason of a contract having no legal force, between himself and the Managing Committee, which is not a statutory body, were terminated by the latter, the lecturer cannot have any cause of action on breach of the law but only on breach of the contract and his only remedy was by way of a suit for damages and not by way of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Having examined this decision we are of the view that it has got full application to the facts of the present case.

5. Mr. Kailash Roy appearing for the petitioner, however, endeavoured to distinguish this authority placing reliance upon a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Harijander Singh V/s. Selection Committee, Kakatiya Medical College, Warrangal, (AIR 1975 Andh Pra 35) (FB) in which the case of Vidya Ram (AIR 1972 SC 1450) (supra) was considered, and was distinguished in paragraph 75 of the report in these words:

"The authority b