The main legal point established in the judgment is that the private college management is an instrumentality of the State amenable to the jurisdiction of the court under Art.226, and the petitioner, being duly appointed earlier, had a legal right to be appointed in the future vacancy.

1. Petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in Colleges affiliated to the University of Kerala. The 1st respondent is the Manager of a private college affiliated to the University of Kerala. That college receives 100 per cent grant for maintenance from the Government. The salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the college is being paid by the State. The 2nd respondent is the Principal of that college. The 3rd respondent is one who, according to the petitioner, is un-officially engaged by respondents 1 and 2 to teach Political Science in the College. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him in the vacancy of Junior Lecturer of Political Science which arose during 1986-87. He also pray a for a writ or prohibition restraining respondents 1 and 2 from engaging the 3rd respondent to take classes in Political Science in the College.

2. The petitioner was employed as a Junior Lecturer in the College belonging to the 1st respondent from 1-9-1972 to 31-3-1973. This appointment was in a leave vacancy. It was approved by the University of Kerala. He was thrown out when the leave vacancy ceased to exist. During the year 1986-87, another vacancy occurred in the College. That vacancy was one likely to become permanent. The 2nd respondent advertised the post and invited applications from qualified persons. In pursuance to that, the petitioner applied for the post on the basis of his qualification and preferential claim as a thrown out teacher. 'By letter dated 11-9-1986, he was called for interview to be held on 19-9-1986. He appeared for interview with all relevant documents on 19-9-1986. No interview took place on that day. By letter dated 20-9-1986, the petitioner was informed that the interview will take place on 26-9-1986. He appeared before the 2nd respondent on 26-9-1986. But he was told that the interview has been postponed indefinitely. The petitioner thereupon approached the 1st and 2nd respondents to get himself appointed on the basis of his preferential claim. Respondents 1 and 2 did not take any step to appoint the petitioner. It was then understood that they have engaged the 3rd respondent to take the classes. The petitioner then filed a representation before the 4th respondent, the Registrar of University of Kerala. The University then sent Ext.P10 letter to the 1st respondent, directing him to appoint the petitioner in the Department of Politics on account of his preferential rights as a thrown out teacher. Ext. P10 did not bring out the desired effect. Hence this Original Petition with the prayers mentioned earlier.

3. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit in CMP No. 29107 of 1986. The averments made therein are that the 3rd respondent was engaged by the Management as a temporary arrangement, that his salary is not disbursed by the Government, that he was engaged for the conduct of the classes during the leave vacancy of an existing lecturer until regular appointment is made as required by the University Acts and Statutes, that the said arrangement was made to safeguard the interest of the students, that the leave vacancy was expected to continue, that the petitioner was the only applicant for the post notified, that the petitioner was over-aged, that he had 7 months of approved service from 1-9-1972 to 31-3-1973, that that service will not entitle him to claim the post on account of his over-age, that a fresh advertisement will be made in the next academic year if the vacancy still persists and that all eligible candidates including the petitioner if he is eligible will be given opportunities to seek appointment.

4. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the Original Petition. According to the learned Counsel the 1st respondent is the Manager of a private college and the private college is not an instrumentality amenable to