Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1572 (PAT)

Arbind Kumar v. State of Bihar

2012-11-23

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2012
ORDER Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th October 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 8259 of 2003, the petitioner no. 2 has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The matter at dispute is the appointment of the respondent no. 4 as a Principal of Karpuri Thakur Inter College, Motihari, a non-government college, by its Governing Body. The challenge has been rejected by the learned single Judge on the grounds that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available against the Governing Body of a private college; and that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Bihar Intermediate Education Council now merged into Bihar School Examination Board. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Anshul appears for the appellant. He has submitted that although the respondent no. 4 has been appointed in a non-government college by its Governing Body, the college that caters to the needs of the people at large is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Krishnamacharyulu and Others Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Another [AIR 1998 Supreme Court 295]. 4. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Anshul. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, as early as in the matter of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others vs. V.R. Rudani and Others [ (1989) 2 SCC 691 ], while granting relief to the teachers in non-government college in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution observed, “if the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie”. 5. In our opinion, the dispute raised in the present proceeding is purely private and has no relation to the duty to the public, if any. We agree with the learned single Judge that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie against the Governing Body of a private college. 6. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine.