ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. The learned Single Judge, while hearing the Writ Petition, by reference order dated 18.4.2012, directed the matter to be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for consideration by a Larger Bench. Thereafter the Writ Petition was placed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench vide its order dated 12.5.2013 directed the Writ Petition to be placed before the Full Bench. Consequently, the Writ Petition has been placed for consideration before this Bench.

2. This is a second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner by means of the Writ Petition in this Court. The earlier Writ Petition, W.P. (C) No. 29801 of 2003 was placed before the Full Bench, which disposed of the matter by its judgment dated 27.7.2004 leaving the question to be decided in appropriate proceedings. The brief facts giving rise to this Writ Petition now need to be noted.

3. The petitioner joined the service of the fifth respondent as Lecturer in English. The fourth respondent College issued an advertisement in the University News dated 8.5.2000 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Principal of the College. The post of Principal in the fourth respondent College fell vacant on 31.3.2000 due to the retirement of the earlier incumbent. The petitioner submitted an application for the said post. A Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with Section 59 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1985). Selection was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 59 of the Act, 1985 by duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner was recommended to be appointed as the Principal. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was forwarded to the University for approval as required by Section 59(8) of the Act, 1985. The University approved the appointment, which was communicated to the College by letter dated 31.3.2001. The College issued an appointment order to the petitioner appointing him as Principal with effect from 3.7.2000. The petitioner referred an application to his earlier institution, i.e. 5th respondent for being relieved. In the letter the petitioner requested the 5th respondent to relieve him with lien of five years. The 5th respondent College issued relieving order dated 3.7.2000 mentioning that the petitioner's lien is retained in the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) in English for a period of five years.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 3.9.2003 of the 4th respondent College pending disciplinary proceedings. Challenging the order dated 3.9.2003, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 29801 of 2003. In the Writ Petition a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the management that the Writ Petition having been filed against a private body was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the management placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Madhavan Pillai vs. Balan and Others, 1979 KLT 220. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the writ Petition was maintainable in view of the various judgments of the Apex Court. The matter was placed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench by order dated 14.11.2003 directed the matter to be placed before the Full Bench. The Writ Petition came up for hearing before the Full Bench. Before the Full Bench learned counsel for the management submitted that the enquiry ordered against the petitioner has reached final stage and the enquiry report has already been served on the petitioner. It was contended by the management that in case the management imposes any punishment, the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal before the University Appellate Tribunal under Section 63(6) of the Act, 1985. The Full Bench left the question regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition open, but disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Management to pass appropriate orders with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of