JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner was a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science in Allama Iqbal College, Biharsharif, Nalanda. He filed the present writ petition in the year 2009 initially against part of letter dated 17.5.2009 contained in Annexure-12 by which he was shown to be working on the post which was an unsanctioned post of Lecturer in the Department of Political Science. His case was that subsequently appointed Lecturers have been wrongly shown to be occupying 3rd and 4th post which should not have been done and petitioner should have been treated to be working against those sanctioned posts. During the pendency of the writ petition an order dated 27.4.2010 was issued by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the aforesaid College terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry report. That order contained in letter dated 27.4.2010 was brought on record as Annexure-24 through I.A. No. 5778/2011 and now the prayer of the petitioner is also for quashing of the said order. 3. There is no dispute that the College is a religious minority institution and is affiliated to Magadh University and it also receives and from the State Government. The impugned order contained in Annexure-24 shows that show cause was called from the petitioner through registered post within 30 days but when show cause was not received, opportunity to participate in the enquiry was granted by issuing advertisement in the newspapers. Allegedly the petitioner did not participate and hence, a two men internal enquiry 'Ed.-Single Judge Order dated 14.5.2012. committee submitted its report which was considered by the Managing Committee of the College and ultimately it passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 26.4.2010. 4. This writ petition was initially considered by a learned single Judge. On behalf of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 a preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of this writ petition against decision of Governing Body of an affiliated Private Minority College. Reliance was placed upon judgment of same learned single Judge in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors., 2011 (3) PLJR 120 wherein it was held that writ petition against Managing Committee of a Private College was not maintainable because such College is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On behalf of the petitioner a large number of judgments of the Supreme Court were relied upon in support of the plea that the writ petition was maintainable even against a minority affiliated college which was receiving aid from the State and was bound by regulatory provisions of the concerned University to which it was affiliated. 5. Considering the importance of the issue, the writ petition was admitted and matter was referred for hearing by a Division Bench. 6. Learned single Judge while referring the matter has noted his, own judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta (supra) and some earlier Division Bench judgments of this court such as in the case of Sri mati Radha Kumari Singh @ Radha Kumari vs. The Governing Body of Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalay & Ors., 1977 PLJR 110 and Chandra Nath Thakur vs. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Anr., 1999(1) PLJR 529 for the purpose of highlighting that consistent view of this court is that a writ petition against decision of the Governing Body/Managing Committee of a private institution even though aided is not maintainable. 7. In the order of reference learned single Judge has also noted some judgments which were cited on behalf of petitioner for persuading this court to take a contrary view. Those are judgments in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others vs. V.R. Rudani & Others, AIR 1989 SC 1607 , Raj Soni vs. Air Officer Incharge Administration & Anr; AIR 1990 SC 1305 and Unni Krishnana, J.P. & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2178 , Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon these cases as also upon another judgment of this court in the case of Correspondent St. Michel Teacher's Training Institute vs. V.N. Karpaga Mary & Ors., (2008)7 SCC 388 and a single Bench judgment of this court in the case of Master Vedant Dhari Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2007)3 PLJR 379 . 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 9 and 10 has relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra) and Chandra Nath Thakur (supra). 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 9 and 10 has relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra) and Chandra Nath Thakur (supra). He has also placed reliance upon judgment of learned single Judge in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta (supra) and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sindhi Education Society vs. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2010)8 SCC 49. 9. The Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra) found that the writ petition was against a non-statutory body, such as the Governing Body of a private college and there was no allegation of any infraction of any statutory provision and hence, it was held that the writ petition is not maintainable. This judgment considered a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. In the case of Chandra Nath Thakur (supra) a dismissed employee of a private recognized Sanskrit School receiving aid from the State Government raised the issue that writ petition against dismissal from service ordered by the Managing Committee of the private school should be entertained because Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board exercises statutory control even over such private schools. The Division Bench took note of the statutory provisions and found that the rules governed only payment of salary to teachers of such schools and held that no writ petition was maintainable in case of termination of service of a teacher of a privately managed school even if the school gets financial aid from the State Government or Sanskrit Board but a writ may be available only where teachers of such schools are denied pay parity with other schools. In this case the petitioner had placed reliance upon Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suyama Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others (supra) and upon the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu & Others vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 295 but both the cases were distinguished in view of different authoritative and unbroken precedents in several cases decided by the Apex Court. Two such cases noticed are reported in AIR 1976 SC 888 (Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, 5hamli vs. lakshmi Narain), AIR 1987 SC 1422 (Dipak Kumar Biswas vs. Director of Public Instruction & Ors.). Two such cases noticed are reported in AIR 1976 SC 888 (Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, 5hamli vs. lakshmi Narain), AIR 1987 SC 1422 (Dipak Kumar Biswas vs. Director of Public Instruction & Ors.). Reliance was also placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Manju Devi vs. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur & Ors. reported in 1987 PLJR 962 . 10. In the case of Sindhi Education Society (supra) the issue related to validity of Government policy for introducing reservation in the matter of employment in minority schools. In that context the Apex Court held that employment in minority schools, aided or unaided, cannot be construed as "a service under the State". It was further held that merely receiving grant-in-aid could not make such school or institution "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India. 11. In the case of Raj Kumar Gupta (supra) a learned single Judge of this court considered the same issue which is presently under consideration and after noticing almost all the precedents noticed above including Division Bench judgments of this court, distinguished the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others (supra) to hold that the writ petition filed for assailing the order passed by the Managing Committee of a minority school was not maintainable. 12. On behalf of petitioner reliance has been placed upon Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami SuvarnaJayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others (supra). As noted above, on more than one occasion that judgment has been distinguished in cases of similar nature. It is not necessary to reiterate the discussions already made in the earlier judgments. However, we would like to notice once again and emphasize that in the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has clearly held that if the rights are purely of a private character, no mandamus can be issued if the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty. Only when these two characteristics or exceptions are absent, the court in appropriate cases may issue mandamus if the party has no other equally convenient remedy. Only when these two characteristics or exceptions are absent, the court in appropriate cases may issue mandamus if the party has no other equally convenient remedy. In this judgment the Apex Court highlighted the words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 of Constitution of India to point out that High Court has been vested with power to issue writs not only confined to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State, the power may cover any other person or body performing public duty. With great emphasis it was highlighted that relevant consideration would be nature of the duty imposed on the body and the duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. It was also made clear that in view of fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people, mandamus may not be denied on the ground that public duty to be enforced is not imposed by any Statute. In that case the University had decided to grant revised pay scales to teachers in affiliated colleges. This was held to be binding on the management on the ground that the service conditions of the academic staff are not purely of a private character and the decision of the University had created a legal right-duty relationship between the staff and management. 13. On behalf of petitioner reliance was next placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnana, J.P. (supra). In that case right of minorities to establish educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution of India was considered in the context of right of the Government to impose conditions for providing grant-in-aid and right of the University or other authorities granting affiliation/recognition to insist on conditions to ensure fairness in matters of appointment. The court pointed out that the right of establishing an educational institution given to minorities does not carry with it right to recognition or affiliation. It was reiterated that private educational institutions recognized by the State or affiliated to University do not become instrumentalities of the State in terms of Article 12. It was also held that even minority institutions are obliged to follow syllabi and the courses of study as determined by the University granting affiliation. It was reiterated that private educational institutions recognized by the State or affiliated to University do not become instrumentalities of the State in terms of Article 12. It was also held that even minority institutions are obliged to follow syllabi and the courses of study as determined by the University granting affiliation. Clearly, the said judgment does not lay down any law contrary to what has been settled by a Full Bench judgment of this court and at least two Division Benches noticed above. 14. Last judgment of the Supreme Court on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance is in the case of St. Michael's Teacher's Training Institute (supra). The case involved. termination from service of a teacher of a private aided institution which was not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India. Paragraphs-10, 11 and 15 of that judgment show that when issue of maintainability of the writ petition was raised on behalf of the appellant before the Supreme Court, it was pointed out on behalf of respondent that jurisdiction of the High Court or the maintainability of the writ petition was not raised before the High Court and hence, it should not be allowed to be raised before the Supreme Court for the first time. The Apex Court observed in paragraph-15 that the question that the appellant was amenable to writ jurisdiction is not in dispute. Hence, that judgment is not an authority on the issue under consideration. It may, however, be noted that the terminated employee involved in that case• was governed by statutory rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. That situation was entirely different and must have been the reason why no objection was taken with regard to maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court. 15. In view of discussions made above and after noticing the various authorities cited by both the parties, we are of the considered view that earlier view of this court as reflected by Division Bench judgments in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra) and Chandra Nath Thakur (supra) as well as a Full Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Manju Devi (supra) does not require any reconsideration. We would, however, like to point out that earlier judgments indicated above, particularly in the case of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (supra), it was clearly indicated that writ petition against a non-statutory body such as Governing Body of a private college was not maintainable as there was no allegation of infraction of any statutory provision. In a given case where in exercise of statutory powers the University granting affiliation to a private college imposes reasonable conditions governing teachers or employees of an affiliated college, then in case of violation of Statutes or Rules of the University by an affiliated college a person having corresponding right may be entitled to seek mandamus. It cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable against a private aided college even if it is a minority institution but the duty sought to be imposed upon a private body through mandamus must be of a public nature otherwise the affected employee will be denied relief in writ jurisdiction. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasji-swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others (supra) is based upon distinction between private rights and duties on the one side and rights and duties of public nature on the other side. It has been established by a long line of precedents that writ jurisdiction provides remedy in matters relating to public domain and for enforcement of rights flowing from Constitution or Statutes. In our view the term-"writ petition is not maintainable" is not fully apt rather proper expression should be-"writ shall not lie" when a writ petition is filed for seeking enforcement of duties other than public duties against a person or authority which is not "State" within Article 12 of Constitution. 16. In the present case our attention was drawn to Section 57 A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. No doubt that section contains provisions whereunder action of the Governing Body of an affiliated college may be regularized in accordance with the Statutes framed by the University laying down the manner in which consultation is required to be made with the College Service Commission in the matters of dismissal, termination, removal, retirement or demotion of teachers in such colleges, but admittedly no such Statutes have been framed by the University. So far as first proviso to Section 57 A is concerned, it was brought to our notice that requirement of seeking approval of the College Service Commission before making appointment or passing orders of dismissal, removal etc. has been declared ultra vires by a judgment of this court in the case of Governing Body of Karim City College vs. State, AIR 1984 Patna 71 [: 1984 PLJR 86 ]. The 3rd proviso to Section 57 A introduced through Act 16 of 2008 contains similar provision for seeking approval of the Selection Committee of the University before passing orders for appointment, dismissal, removal or termination of teachers or for taking disciplinary action against them. 17. In this regard learned counsel for respondents No. 9 and 10 submits that State Government has been moved for withdrawing the aforesaid amendment on account of the same being contrary to law declared by this court whereby the first proviso was struck. down. He further submits that no Selection Committee of the University has been constituted to make the proviso effective. 18. In the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that no writ can be issued to grant any relief to the writ petitioner who is seeking a personal right of restoration of contract of service against Managing Committee of a private minority college. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that no writ would lie against private respondents in absence of any right in the petitioner with corresponding duty of a public nature upon the respondents. It goes without saying that, if so advised, the petitioner may seek his remedy through civil court of competent jurisdiction.