Judgment :- In W.P.No.6048 of 2001, the Petitioner challenges the order of Transfer to the post of Special Officer, Lalith Kala Academy and seeks direction to restore him to the post of Principal and Member Secretary of Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam. In W.P.No.6049 of 2001, the Petitioner seeks declaration to declare para 113. 0 of the Minutes of the XVIIIth Governing Body Meeting dated 14.03.2000 as null and void and to remove the Third Respondent from the post of Member Secretary. In W.P.No.4879 of 2001, the Petitioner seeks direction to restore him to his original position as Principal, Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam and to pay all the arrears of salary and other monetary benefits. 2. All three Writ Petitions relate to same set of facts and hence, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. 1. Relevant facts in nutshell are as follows:-Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam (for short BPK) is a registered society sponsored and funded by the Government of Pondicherry with annual-grant-in-aid. The Petitioner was appointed as Principal in October 1995. On 11.03.1996, the Governing Body of BPK resolved to appoint a new Principal as Member Secretary. There was widespread disenchantment amongst staff and unrest amongst students leading to prolonged strikes and agitations, which disrupted the working of the institution. Certain irregularities and abuse of process of powers are alleged against the Petitioner. 3. 2. The Petitioner was asked to function as Full Time Officer on Special duty (for short "OSD")to look after the work in connection with Constitution of State Iyal Isai Nataka Mandram (Sangeet Natak Academy) and State Nunkalai Kuzhu/Mandram (State Lalit Kala Academy) vide order dated 20.12.1999. The Petitioner was permitted to draw his salary from BPK. That direction to assume as Officer on Special Duty for Sangeet Natak Academy (SNA) and State Lalit Kala Academy (LKA) is challenged in W.P.No.6048 of 2001. 3. 3. In its meeting held on 14.03.2000, the Governing Body of BPK has ratified appointment of Principal as Member Secretary in addition to his normal duties and responsibilities, pursuant to which, the Third Respondent was designated as Director cum Member Secretary, which is the subject matter in W.P.No.6049 of 2001. According to Petitioner, the Institution basically imparting Art and Culture and only persons with wide academic and cultural background and experience alone will be able to lead the Institution. 3. 4. According to Petitioner, the Institution basically imparting Art and Culture and only persons with wide academic and cultural background and experience alone will be able to lead the Institution. 3. 4. Alleging that no infrastructure has been provided and that he is without work in SNA and LKA, the Petitioner has filed W.P.No.4879 of 2001 seeking direction for restoration to his original position. 3. 5. The Petitioner has alleged that he was not paid University Grants Commission (UGC) salary applicable to the post of Principal and Member Secretary and there are unauthorised deductions from his salary without affording any opportunity to him. 4. Contending that the Impugned Order of transfer is motivated one, learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.M. Vijayan has submitted that the Petitioner was transferred to a nonexistent post and transfer to such a nonexistent post is punitive. It was further submitted that for BPK, only persons of excellence in Arts and Culture could be appointed as Member Secretary and appointing one Kandiah, Director of Art and Culture as Member Secretary is illegal and in violation of U.G.C norms and regulations. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that by keeping the Petitioner idle in a nonexistent post, the talents of Petitioner is wasted apart from colossal waste of public money in paying salary to the Petitioner in a nonexistent post. 5. Mrs. Rita Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.No.4879 of 2001 has submitted that till date, no infrastructure has been provided to the Petitioner to work for Sangeet Natak Academy and State Lalit Kala Academy and that the Petitioner has been unjustifiably deprived of UGC Scale of pay and there is no justification in retaining him as OSD in Lalit Kala Academy. .6. Bharathiar Palkalaikoodam is a registered Society sponsored and funded by the Government of Pondicherry with annual-grant-in-aid. It is duly registered under Registration of Societies Act. BPK was established in 1987 with the object to establish and run a School of Music, School of Dance and School of Arts and Crafts, establish an Art Gallery and allied purposes. One of the objects of BPK is to establish a Memorial in the name of Poet Subramania Bharathiar, which shall take the shape of Multi Art Complex consisting of School, Laboratories, Auditoria, Galleries, Hostels etc. 7. BPK was started with three schools viz., School of Dance, School of Music and School of Fine Arts. One of the objects of BPK is to establish a Memorial in the name of Poet Subramania Bharathiar, which shall take the shape of Multi Art Complex consisting of School, Laboratories, Auditoria, Galleries, Hostels etc. 7. BPK was started with three schools viz., School of Dance, School of Music and School of Fine Arts. The Institution provided facilities to impart education at pre-degree and degree level in vocal music, Veena, Violin and musical instruments in the Music Department; various discipline of dance in Dance Department and providing Art and Culture in the area of Drawing, Painting, Visual Communication and Design, Textile Design and Sculpture and Computer Graphics and Stage Design as allied subjects in the Art and Crafts Department. The Institution is functioning at Ariyankuppam in an extensive area of 10.5 acres of land acquired for the purpose. BPK has been granted affiliation with Pondicherry University in 1993. 8. Governing Body of BPK comprises of Education Minister of Pondicherry as Chairman, Chief Secretary to Government as Vice Chairman, Secretaries to Government in Education, Finance and Public Works Departments and Director of Education as Members, apart from a nominated Member. Originally, Director of Art and Culture was Director cum Member Secretary. One Mr. Muthukrishnan – Retired Director of Education was appointed as Officer on Special Duty for BPK and he was incharge of day to day administration of the Institute and he was assisted by the Staff on consolidated pay. The said Muthukrishnan was reporting to the Director of Education and thereafter to Director of Art and Culture, after bifurcation of the Department from the Education Department. At that time, Director of Art and Culture was also the Director cum Member Secretary of BPK. 9. In the Meeting held on 11.07.1995, the Governing Body of BPK proposed to strengthen the organisation and proposed re-order staff of BPK to promote the Institution as an Institution of Excellence. The Governing Body has appointed the Petitioner as Principal in BPK in the scale of pay of Rs.3700 – 5700/-. The Principal shall be in charge of (i) General Administration; (ii) Supervision of academic work; (iii) Teaching (minimum Six hours), (iv) Member Secretary of Governing Body initiate a Policy and Planning. .10. There was widespread disenchantment amongst staff and unrest among students leading to strikes and agitations. It is alleged that one Ms. The Principal shall be in charge of (i) General Administration; (ii) Supervision of academic work; (iii) Teaching (minimum Six hours), (iv) Member Secretary of Governing Body initiate a Policy and Planning. .10. There was widespread disenchantment amongst staff and unrest among students leading to strikes and agitations. It is alleged that one Ms. Annapoorna and P.V. Bose close to the Petitioner and Petitioners own Brother Mr. M.N. Moorthy were selected as Guest Lecturers on consolidated pay. Petitioners Brother – Moorthy is said to have left within short period. It was further alleged that within a period of ten months, those Guest Lecturers were appointed on regular basis. On allegations of mismanagement, Deva Neethi Das Commission was appointed, who made several critical observations about functioning of the Petitioner. 11. Petitioner went on earned leave from July to August 1999. Even then, students unrest continued unabated. The Petitioner sent his representation dated 012. 1999 expressing his desire to work in any Department under Ministry of Education and Art and Culture. By Impugned Order dated 20.12.1999, Petitioner was directed to work as OSD in respect of work relating to Constitution of SNA and LKA. The Petitioner has joined the said post without any protest. The Petitioner is said to have made a representation against that order only on 21.06.2000 nearly six months after passing of the said order. 12. Petitioner was directed to work as OSD in respect of constitution of SNA and LKA and he was placed in charge of pioneering that Institution. When Petitioner was shifted, pursuant to his representation, it cannot be said that the order shifting him to LKA is vitiated by malafides. Having regard to exigency of administration, Petitioner was posted as OSD and no malafide could be attributed to the order posting him as OSD of LKA. The Petitioner has not been able to substantiate that Impugned Order of shifting was passed malafide against him for an oblique purpose or for wrecking vengeance against him. 13. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of malafide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances, but for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of vague suggestions. 13. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of malafide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances, but for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of vague suggestions. As noticed earlier, there was widespread students unrest and having regard to exigency of administration and pursuant to representation of Petitioner, the Petitioner was posted as OSD in LKA. No malafide could be attributed to the Impugned Order posting the Petitioner as OSD in LKA. .14. The Governing Body in its meeting held on 14.03.2000 ratified the appointment of Director of Art and Culture as Member Secretary in addition to his normal duties and responsibilities. There seems nothing irregular about the same since the said Director was originally the Member Secretary of BPK before the induction of Petitioner as Principal. One Jayashree Narayanan – Senior most Head of Department, who is a Professional Artist was appointed as Principal in charge. There is no legal basis for the contention that post of Member Secretary should be held only by the Principal. In any event, the said Third Respondent – S. Kandiah is no longer Member Secretary and one Sambandham – Former under Secretary has been posted as Member Secretary, who assumed charge on 08.06.2001. The decision of Governing Body appointing Member Secretary cannot be subject to judicial review unless shown to be violation of Rules and Regulations. When actions have been taken having regard to exigency of administration, judicial review of that order is very limited. 15. In W.P.No.4879 of 2001, Petitioner seeks direction to restore the Petitioner to his original position as Principal and to pay all arrears of salary and other monetary benefits. It is averred that there are unjust deductions from his salary. On behalf of Petitioner, it was contended that Petitioner was displaced from the post of Principal and Member Secretary and has not been paid UGC salary applicable to the post of Principal and Member Secretary. In this regard, no details are forthcoming as to what is UGC scale of Pay and how much is drawn by the Petitioner. Only at the time of arguments, it was stated that the present pay of the Petitioner is Rs.12,375 – 18,000/- and whereas UGC Scale of pay is Rs.12,425 – 18,000/-. In this regard, no details are forthcoming as to what is UGC scale of Pay and how much is drawn by the Petitioner. Only at the time of arguments, it was stated that the present pay of the Petitioner is Rs.12,375 – 18,000/- and whereas UGC Scale of pay is Rs.12,425 – 18,000/-. In the absence of any averments regarding Scale of Pay and how much is the actual pay of scale and what is the shortage, Court cannot go into factual details. 16. Main contention of the Petitioner is that he has not been given any work as OSD in LKA. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has produced Letter sent by Petitioner submitting particulars regarding the work done in connection with setting up of LKA and SNA. It was submitted that for constitution of LKA and SNA, no clerical, administrative staff and infrastructure have been provided for and without assigning any work, the Petitioners talent has been wasted. Having been entrusted with pioneering and setting up of SNA and LKA, the Petitioner ought to have made appropriate representation in getting things done. There is no factual basis for grievance of the Petitioner that OSD Post is nonexistent. 117. Contending that Writ Petition is not maintainable against BPK, which is registered as Society, learned Government Pleader Pondicherry has placed reliance upon the decision of Larger Bench of this Court reported in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ( 2006 (4) C.T.C. 689 ). It was submitted that the Petitioner can invoke Article 226 of the Constitution only for enforcement of statutory public duty and the Writ is not maintainable regarding his service conditions. The contention that writ is not maintainable against Society registered under the Societies Registration Act has no force. In the decision reported in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S.Trust Vs V.R. Rudani (A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1607), the Supreme Court has held that issuance of Writ of Mandamus is confined to Statutory Authority and instrumentalities of State. Holding that it can be issued to any other person or Authority performing Public duty, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "...Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. Holding that it can be issued to any other person or Authority performing Public duty, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "...Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 are therefore not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. It may be pointed out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the Statute..." As held by the Supreme Court, decisions creating legal right, duty relationship between Staff and Management, Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs. 18. When Petitioner having been shifted to new assignment on his own request cannot express any grievance. The Petitioner is not entitled to seek discretionary relief invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. All three Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.