Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 30th November, 1996, contained in Annexure-1, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya-cum-Secretary of the Managing Committee of Ayurved Medical College, Gaya, whereby and whereunder pursuant to the enquiry report submitted by the conducting officer in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the authority on humanitarian ground took lenient view and passed order only for reverting him back permanently to the post from which he had been appointed as Principal in the said Institution. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with respect to certain charges in which an enquiry report was submitted by the conducting officer and on consideration of the same, the aforementioned impugned order was passed. 3. It was contended by Mr. Shahi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that since no consultation was made with the College Service Commission in the manner prescribed by the statute before passing of the impugned order, the said order is ultra vires Sec. 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Universities Act) read with Sub-sec. (12) of Sec. 2 of the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Commission Act) whereunder the Governing Body of such a college has to consult the Commission in all disciplinary matters affecting the Teachers and such matters cannot be disposed of nor any action can be taken or any punishment imposed on such Teacher otherwise than in conformity with the findings of the Commission. It was submitted by Mr. Shahi that the impugned order also suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as despite the request made by the petitioner he has not been supplied with the documents which were relevant for his defence against the charges levelled against him. As such, according to him, the impugned order is fit to be quashed on this ground as well. 4. Mr. As such, according to him, the impugned order is fit to be quashed on this ground as well. 4. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Institution submitted that Sec. 57A of the Universities Act will have no application to the facts of the present case and the petitioner cannot seek any protection under the said provision as the respondent Institution is not covered by the provisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner According to him, for application of Sec. 57A of the Universities Act or Sub-section (12) of Sec. 2 of the Commission Act, the petitioner will have to show that the college is an affiliated college and is controlled by the provisions relating to such affiliated college contained in Secs. 59 and 60 of the Universities Act. In this regard he also referred to the definition of the words "affiliated College" as provided in Clause (c) of Sec. 2 of the Universities Act which means educational institution having received privileges of the University according to the provisions of the said Act and University Statutes made thereto. It was submitted by Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondent Institution that the respondent Institution does not receive any privileges from the University as per the provisions of this Act and the University Statute except that under the direction of the State Government the students of the said Institution are allowed to sit in the examination conducted by Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University. It was also submitted by him that the overall control of the institution in question is vested in the State Government and is governed by the provisions of the Bihar Indigenous Medical Educational Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Act). He further submitted that Sec. 8 of 1982 Act fully deals with all service conditions of the Teachers of the Institution concerning Indigenous Medical Education and as such the application of the provisions of the Universities Act of the Commission Act shall be deemed to have been excluded in the cases of the Teachers of the said Institution. 5. I find substance in the submissions of Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Institution. 5. I find substance in the submissions of Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Institution. Sec. 8 of the 1982 Act provides the power to constitute Governing Bodies for Private College in Indigenous System of Medicine which, according to the said provision, vests in the State Government notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Acts and the Regulations of the University concerned. The State Government is also competent to give directions to such Private Colleges for determining recruitment rules for teachers, their service conditions, scales of pay, teaching experience, minimum or maximum age and whether the incumbents of such posts should have the privilege of private practice or not. Under its Sub-clause (iii), the affiliation of such colleges can be withdrawn in the event of noncompliance with the directions given by the State Government or the Central Counsel of Indian System of Medicine of India within the stipulated time. Sub-clause (iv) provides that the decision of the State Government will be final in the event of difference of opinion on any subject between the State Government and a Private College in Indigenous System of Medicine. Thus from the plain reading of the said provisions, it is evident that the State Government has been vested with full power in the matter of service conditions of teachers of such institution. It is not the case of the petitioner that the State Governments direction relating to service conditions of such teachers has been violated while imposing the impugned penalty. 6. Under Sec. 57A of the Universities Act, appointments of teacher of affiliated colleges not maintained by the State Government are to be made by the Governing Body on the recommendation of the College Service Commission and dismissal, termination, removal, retirement from service or demotion in rank of teachers of such Colleges are to be done by the Governing Body in consultation with the College Service Commission in the manner prescribed by the statute. Sub-section (12) of Sec. 2 of the Commission Act provides that the Commission shall be consulted by the Governing Body of a College in all disciplinary matters affecting a teacher of the college and no memorials or petitions relating to such matters shall be disposed of, nor shall any action be taken against, or any punishment imposed on a teacher of the college otherwise than in conformity with the findings of the Commission. 7. 7. The very preamble of the said Act says that the said Act was enacted to establish a College Service Commission for the appointment of teachers of the affiliated college and intermediate college in the State of Bihar. In the explanation an affiliated college has been defined as may college which is admitted to the privileges of the Universities Act and imparts instruction up to degree standard. An intermediate college means a college which imparts instruction up to intermediate standard and the intermediate section of a degree college in which instruction has been imparted up to intermediate standard. 8. The overall control of the institution in question after the enactment of 1982 Act fully vests in the State Government notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Acts and the Regulations of the University and as such it cannot be said to be covered by Sec. 57A of the Universities Act and Sub-section (12) of Sec. 2 of the Commission Act, both of which only deal with the cases of affiliated colleges not maintained by the State Government and those mentioned in the Commission Act. After the enactment of 1982 Act the State Government has been vested with the power to give directions; for determining the service conditions of the teachers of such colleges and the same have to be followed with respect to such teachers. 1982 Act is a special Act specifically dealing with such colleges/institutions like the institution in question and notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Act and the Regulations of the University concerned. Thus, I find it difficult to hold the on compliance of Sec. 57A of the Universities Act and/or Sub-sec. (12) of Sec. 2 of the Commission Act while passing the impugned order would vitiate it and the same is liable to be quashed on the said ground. 9. There appears to be no substance in the second submission also of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The very perusal of the impugned order shows that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a conducting officer was also appointed for the said purpose who submitted his report, on consideration of which the competent authority passed the impugned order reverting the petitioner back permanently to the post from which he had been appointed as Principal in the said Institution. However, no such objection was ever raised by the petitioner that the document was not furnished and/or that the conducting officer did not comply with the principles of natural justice. 10. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is, thus, dismissed. But without costs.