S. RAFAT ALAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceeding and punishing the opposite party for the alleged wilful and deliberate defiance of this courts order dated 17. 2. 1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 20883 of 1997 and the order dated 24. 7. 1998 passed in the Review Application No. 20094 of 1998. ( 2 ) 1 have perused the aforesaid orders of this Court contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the contempt petition. It appears that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 20883 of 1997 for quashing the advertisement and selection as well as appointment of Sri Ashok Sonkar who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition, to the post of Lecturer in Tridesh Vigyari. Department of Basic Principles Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, varanasi. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy available under Section 5 (7) of the Banaras Hindu University Act. However, while dismissing the writ the Division Bench has observed as under : "however, it is provided that in ease the petitioner will file a representation before the learned visitor, that would be entertained and decided on merit. " ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed the Review Petition No. 20094 of 1998 which was partly allowed by providing that the learned Visitor should consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14. 5. 1997 and pass appropriate order on the representation possibly within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. ( 4 ) IT has been alleged in the contempt petition that despite service of the order of this Court upon the Honble Visitor, the representation of the petitioner has not been decided. ( 5 ) IT is apparent from the array of parties to the writ petition that the Honble Visitor was not arrayed as respondent, and rightly so, because of constitutional bar as provided under Article 361 (1) of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) IT is apparent from the array of parties to the writ petition that the Honble Visitor was not arrayed as respondent, and rightly so, because of constitutional bar as provided under Article 361 (1) of the Constitution of India. Clause (1) of Article 361 of the Constitution of India provides that the President shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. Therefore, no Court can compel the president to exercise any power or to perform any duty, nor he is amenable to the writ or direction issued by any Court. Article 361 (1) of the Constitution gives complete immunity to the president and Governors of States from any proceeding of the Court in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties of his office including any duty or function which are incidental to the exercise of his power and performance of his duties. The protection given under this provision not only extends to his official acts and omissions but also to those acts and omissions which are incidental to the exercise of powers and performance of his duties. Therefore, the orders of this Court dated 17. 2. 1998 and 24. 7. 1998 were not binding on him. No doubt, the action or the order of the President can be scrutinized by the Courts in order to give relief to the individuals against the Government and, the personal Immunity given to the president under the Constitution will not stand as a bar in instituting any suit or writ petition against the Government. But in such suit or proceeding the President is not a necessary party and no mandamus or direction can be issued to the President. ( 6 ) SECTION 5 of the Banaras Hindu University Act provides that the President of India shall be visitor of the University. But in such suit or proceeding the President is not a necessary party and no mandamus or direction can be issued to the President. ( 6 ) SECTION 5 of the Banaras Hindu University Act provides that the President of India shall be visitor of the University. The President has been made Visitor of the University by virtue of his office and not in his personal capacity and thus, in my view, the personal immunity to the president for official acts provided under clause (1) of Article 361 of the Constitution is available to him in respect of his functions and duties as Visitor of the University, because he has been made Visitor by virtue of his office. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter, the contempt petition falls and it is hereby dismissed. The notice issued to the opposite party is hereby discharged. .