Mihir Kumar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents no. 1 to 5.

2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: –

“(i) For quashing the letter no. S-23 dated 16.3.2013 issued by the University Representative cum Secretary, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College Jehanabad (respondent no.7) by which the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Principal, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Jehanabad without approval from the Magadh University and by the Ad-hoc Committee which is illegal because ex-officio member of the committee has not been appointed legally.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of suspension of the petitioner, a permanent Member of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Jehanabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’) is bad both on fact and in law. He has submitted that the order of suspension on allegation has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for Magadh University, on the other hand, has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as the order of suspension has been passed by an Ad-hoc Committee of an affiliated College which is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. He has further submitted that in terms of the statutes the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal against the order of suspension before the Syndicate of the University.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court such preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the Magadh University has to be upheld. The petitioner is an employee of an affiliated college. He has been placed under suspension under the orders of the appointing authority, namely the Governing Body/Adhoc Committee of the College. The issue that a writ petition will not lie against a Governing Body/Adhoc Committee of an affiliated college has been well settled in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Manju Devi vs. the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur & Ors., reported in 1987 PLJR 962 and in the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Srimati 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. In fact all these judgments were considered in a recent Division Bench judgment dated 05.10.2012 in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C No. 10530 of 2009), wherein, it was held as follows: –

"In view of discussions made above and after noticing the various authorities cited by both the parties, we are of the considered view that earlier view of this court as reflected by Division Bench judgements in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra) and Chandra Nath Thakur (supra) as well as a Full Bench judgement in the case of Smt. Manju Devi (supra) does not require any reconsideration. We would, however, like to point out that earlier judgements indicated above, particularly in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra), it was clearly indicated that writ petition against a non statutory body such as Governing Body of a private college was not maintainable as there was no allegation of infraction of any statutory provision. In a given case where in exercise of statutory powers the University granting affiliation to a private college imposes reasonable conditions governing teachers or employees of an affiliated college, then in case of violation of Statues or Rules of the University by an affiliated college a person having corresponding right may be entitled to seek mandamus. It cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable against a private aided college even if it is a minority institution but the duty sought to be imposed upon a private body through mandamus must be of a public nature otherwise the affected employee will be denied relief in writ jurisdi