The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a public duty to be imposed upon a private body through mandamus for a writ petition to be maintainable.

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

1. Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner was a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science in Allama Iqbal College, Biharsharif, Nalanda. He filed the present writ petition in the year 2009 initially against part of letter dated 17.5.2009 contained in Annexure-12 by which he was shown to be working on the post which was an unsanctioned post of Lecturer in the Department of Political Science. His case was that subsequently appointed Lecturers have been wrongly shown to be occupying 3rd and 4th post which should not have been done and petitioner should have been treated to be working against those sanctioned posts. During the pendency of the writ petition an order dated 27.4.2010 was issued by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the aforesaid College terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry report. That order contained in letter dated 27.4.2010 was brought on record as Annexure-24 through I.A. No. 5778/2011 and now the prayer of the petitioner is also for quashing of the said order.

3. There is no dispute that the College is a religious minority institution and is affiliated to Magadh University and it also receives and from the State Government. The impugned order contained in Annexure-24 shows that show cause was called from the petitioner through registered post within 30 days but when show cause was not received, opportunity to participate in the enquiry was granted by issuing advertisement in the newspapers. Allegedly the petitioner did not participate and hence, a two men internal enquiry 'Ed.-Single Judge Order dated 14.5.2012. committee submitted its report which was considered by the Managing Committee of the College and ultimately it passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 26.4.2010.

4. This writ petition was initially considered by a learned single Judge. On behalf of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 a preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of this writ petition against decision of Governing Body of an affiliated Private Minority College. Reliance was placed upon judgment of same learned single Judge in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors., 2011 (3) PLJR 120 wherein it was held that writ petition against Managing Committee of a Private College was not maintainable because such College is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On behalf of the petitioner a large number of judgments of the Supreme Court were relied upon in support of the plea that the writ petition was maintainable even against a minority affiliated college which was receiving aid from the State and was bound by regulatory provisions of the concerned University to which it was affiliated.

5. Considering the importance of the issue, the writ petition was admitted and matter was referred for hearing by a Division Bench.

6. Learned single Judge while referring the matter has noted his, own judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta (supra) and some earlier Division Bench judgments of this court such as in the case of Sri mati Radha Kumari Singh @ Radha Kumari vs. The Governing Body of Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalay & Ors., 1977 PLJR 110 and Chandra Nath Thakur vs. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Anr., 1999(1) PLJR 529 for the purpose of highlighting that consistent view of this court is that a writ petition against decision of the Governing Body/Managing Committee of a private institution even though aided is not maintainable.

7. In the order of reference learned single Judge has also noted some judgments which were cited on behalf of petitioner for persuading this court to take a contrary view. Those are judgments in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others vs. V.R. Rudani & Others, AIR 1989 SC 1607, Raj Soni vs. Air Officer Incharge Administration & Anr; AIR 1990 SC 1305 and Unni Krishnana, J.P. & Ors. vs.