The question to be answered in this writ petition is whether the teacher of private college receiving grant-in-aid from the State is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for reinstatement to the post of Principal held by him before reversion.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy in Raid Laban College, Shillong. He responded to an advertisement and applied for the post of Principal in Tikrikilla College, Tikrikilla. The Governing Body on completion of selection process vide resolution dated 30.12.89 approved his appointment as Principal. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Principal on regular basis with effect from 31.12.89 on a consolidated pay of Rs.2,000 per month. Because of certain alleged irregularities and deficiencies on his part, the Governing Body vide resolution dated 25.6.98 decided to degrade him to the post of Lecturer. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 17.6.98, while forwarding the copy of the resolution of the Governing Body, directed him to hand over the charge of the office of the Principal to respondent No. 5 and continue to work as Lecturer of Philosophy against non-sanctioned post. Accordingly the petitioner handed over the charge of the office of the Principal on 6.7.98 to the respondent No.5 and submitted a representation for reinstatement to the post of Principal. The said representation was not considered and hence, the petitioner preferred this petition for reliefs indicated above.

3. I have heard Shri S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also Mr. BP Maizal, Mr. MK Deb and Mr. SK Deb, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the Tikrikilla College is purely a private college receiving only ad hoc grant from the State Government and as such, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision in Dipak Kumar vs. Director of Public Instruction, Meghalaya & others, AIR 1987 SC 1422. In this case before the Supreme Court, the status of Lady Keane Girls College, Shillong was under consideration. After consideration of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vaish College vs. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888 and J. Tiwari vs. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir, AIR 1981 SC 122, the Supreme Court held as follows :

“12. The law enunciated in these decisions stand fully attracted to this case

also. Even though the Lady Keane Girls College may be governed by the statutes of the University and the Education Code framed by the Government of Meghalaya and even though the college may be receiving financial aid from the Government it would not be a statutory body because it has not been created by any statute and its existence is not dependent upon any statutory provision.”

5. On the conclusion as above, the Supreme Court refused to grant any relief to the appellant primarily on consideration of the fact that the said college was not a creation of any statute. However, the Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution directed the college authorities to pay three years salary and allowances to the writ petitioner. The respondents also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Govt of Assam vs. Ajit Kumar Sarma, AIR 1965 SC1196 and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Governing Body of Women's College & others vs. Alpana Syam, 1994 (1) GHC 273. In Ajit Kumar Sarma (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the Rules for the purpose of grants-in-aid being merely executive instructions do not confer any kind of right on the teacher to apply for a Mandamus. The decision of this Court rendered in Silchar Collegiate School vs. Devi Prasad Bhattacharjee, 1993 (2) GLJ 312 has also been referred to.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the decisions relied upon by the respondents no longe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document