WP(C) 4094/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA The matter relates to the discharge of the petitioner from the services of the p articular College of which he was the Principal. In the first writ petition, the challenge is regarding suspension and in the second writ petition, the challen ge is regarding the order of discharge from service. Both the writ petitions hav e been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement and ord er. 2. The issue involved is in a very narrow campus, whether the subject matte r is amenable to writ jurisdiction. While it is the case of the petitioner that the College being in receipt of adhoc grants-in-aid from the Govt., it can not b e said to be a purely private college and thus the matter pertaining to discharg e from service of an employee of the college can be looked into by the writ cour t exercising its power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the respondents that the college being a purely privat e one and there being no control of the Government in the matter of appointment and removal of the employees of the college, the writ petition is not maintainab le as no direction can be issued to a private body exercising power and jurisdic tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner while was serving as Lecturer of Uttar Barpeta College in the district of Barpeta was appointed as Principal, which was communicated to h im by Annexure-A letter dated 26.8.2002, issued under the signature of the Secre tary of the College. There is no dispute that his such appointment did not have any approval of any governmental authorities. 4. By annexure-E letter dated 31.8.2008, the President of the Governing Bod y of the college asked the petitioner to furnish reply within 15 days from the d ate of issue of the letter in respect of the charges mentioned in their letter. By the said letter, the petitioner was also placed under suspension. Making a ch allenge to the said letter dated 31.8.2008, placing the petitioner under suspens ion and also asking him to show cause in respect of the charges mentioned in the letter, the petitioner filed the first writ petition being WP(C) No. 4094/2008, which was entertained by order dated 24.9.2008. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was removed fro m service by Annexure-H letter dated 17.11.2008, addressed to him by the Preside nt of the Governing Body of the College. The grounds assigned for such course of action as indicated in the letter are as follows:- 1. Your total failure to comply with the suspended letter dated 31.8.08. 2. Your failure to comply with the Auditors’ committee. 3. Large scale corruption committed from college fund and charges levelled against you. 4. Non-submission of important and relevant documents of the college having with your unauthorised custody. 5. Misleading the Judiciary and police administration using college stamp, pad & seal during suspended period. 6. Violation of all the points of suspended letter dated 31.8.08. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition being WP(C) No. 5069/2008. 7. In the writ petitions, the petitioner has placed reliance on the policy decision of the Government to provide financial assistance to the private educat ional institutions on need basis. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Annexure-B letter dated 4.1.2007 addressed to the Accountant General (A&E), Ass am, by the Govt. of Assam in the Education, Planning (H) Department, conveying t he sanction of the amount of Rs. 3.30 crores for giving financial assistance to 120 colleges (Non-Gvernment) at the rate indicated in the letter. The petitioner ’s college was also included for such financial assistance. The petitioner has a lso placed reliance on the Annexure-C letter dated 4.11.2006 issued by the Gauha ti University to all the Principals of the Colleges affiliated to Gauhati Unive rsity, other than the colleges maintained or aided on recurring basis by the Gov t. of Assam. By the said letter, it was emphasised that such colleges are to be governed by a regularly constituted Governing Body as prescribed in Gauhati Univ ersity statute. 8. It is on the above basis, it has been contended by the petitioner that t here being control of the Government over the college, the petitioner could not have been discharged from service by a stroke of pen without taking recourse to the procedure envisaged for regular departmental proceeding. Further plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have been discharged from the servi ce by the Governing Body of the College without obtaining the approval of the Di rector of Higher Education. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid plea of the petitioner has been controverted. The stand of the respondents is that ther e is no control of the Government over the College, as it is a purely private c ollege and thus the matter relating to employment and discharge of the employees of such private college cannot be agitated by filling the writ petition under A rticle 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.A. Kayum, le arned counsel for the petitioner referring to the aforesaid documents relating t o the grant of financial assistance and constitution of the Managing Committee o f Non-govt. colleges, submitted that there being some amount of control of the G overnment over the Management of the college, the discharge of the petitioner f rom service cannot be termed as a purely private affair of the private college a nd thus the writ petition is maintainable. 11. Controverting the above argument, Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior cou nsel assisted by Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 , 5 & 6 i.e. the Governing Body of the College, submitted that the college in qu estion being a purely private one, its affairs relating to employment and discha rge of employees cannot be agitated invoking the writ jurisdiction. Mr. Choudhur y, learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this court in Saleha Begum Vs. State of Assam reported in 2006 (1) GLT 86. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the materials on records. Learned counsel for the parties have drawn a ttention to the provisions of the Assam Non-Government College Management Rules, 2001, stated to be applicable to the college in question. This rule has made pr ovisions for constitution and composition of the Governing Body of the Non-Govt. colleges. Rule 18 of the rules provides that the Governing Body of a non-Govt. College not brought under the Deficit System of Financial Aid is not required to sent the proceedings of the meetings of the Governing Body to the Director. The main provision of rule 18 provides for sending the minutes of the proceeding of the Governing Body meeting to the Director. However, an exception has been made in respect of Non-govt. colleges which are not brought under the Deficit System of Grants-in-aid. It is an admitted position that the college with which we are concerned, is a Non-Govt. college, which is yet to be brought under the Deficit System of Grants-in-aid. If that be so, as per the requirement of the said rul e, there is no necessity to send the resolutions of the Governing Body to the Di rector of Higher Education, Assam. 13. The above aspect of the matter has been highlighted by the Director of H igher Education in his affidavit filed on 18.7.2009, in which it has been stated that the college is neither a provincialised college nor it has been brought un der the Deficit System of Grants-in-aid. It has further been stated that the col lege is not receiving any other grants. According to the said affidavit, the fin ancial assistance provided to the college cannot be termed as adhoc grant. Rule 1(3) of the aforesaid rules states that the rule will be applicable to Non-Gover nment Colleges in Assam affiliated by any Central or State University of Assam a nd in receipt of Deficit System of Grands-in-aid or adhoc grants-in-aid from the State Government. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the financial assistan ce provided to the college being an adhoc grants-in-aid, the provisions of the a foresaid rules are applicable. Adhoc grants-in-aid is a recurring aid provided t o the institutions unlike the one time financial assistance provided to the inst itutions like that of the petitioner’s college, which has been provided with fin ancial assistance by the Govt. of Assam under its particular policy decision. Su ch financial assistance cannot be said to be recurring adhoc grants which is bei ng provided to the educational institutions irrespective of the financial assist ance provided to private institutions as per the Annexure-A policy decision of t he Government. The annexure-A policy decision is of 2005, while the adhoc grants -in-aid is being provided to the institutions from long time past. 15. Above aspect of the matter will also have to be understood in the contex t of rule 18 of the aforesaid rules which clearly provides that so far as the no n-government colleges are concerned which are not brought under Deficit System o f Grants-in-aid, the governing body’s are not required to send the proceedings o f the meetings to the Director, Higher Education. The whole basis of the claim o f the petitioner is that the impugned decision relating to the order of suspensi on and discharge from service without obtaining approval of the Director are ba d in law. When the rules itself provide that no such approval is required, the p etitioner cannot insist that the impugned orders must have the approval of the a uthority. 16. Neither in the matter of appointment nor in discharge of the petitioner from service, there was any requirement to get any approval of governmental auth orities. It is the Managing Committee which appointed the petitioner and also te rminated his service. The impugned resolution of the managing committee of the c ollege is a decision of a private management, governed by private law. It can no t be said to have involved in public law. It is the private body i.e. the Managi ng Committee of the college which has terminated the services of the petitioner. That being the position, there is also no requirement to obtain any approval of the governmental authorities. This is precisely the reason as to why the Direc tor of Higher Education in his affidavit has clearly stated that his approval in the matter of termination of the services of the petitioner is not required. 17. All the above aspect of the matter have been discussed in Saleha Begum ( supra) on which Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body has placed reliance. The appointment and termination of services of the petitio ner by the Managing Committee of the privately managed college, in my considered view, cannot be brought within the purview of writ jurisdiction. 18. In the case of Supriyo Basu and Ors. Vs. WB Housing Board and Ors. repor ted in (2005) 6 SCC 289 the Apex Court noticing that the society in question bei ng not a department of the State and also not being a creature of a statute, but merely governed by a statute, upheld the decision of the High Court by which it was held that the writ petition was not maintainable as no statutory action had been assailed. It was noted by the High Court that the dispute involved in that proceeding essentially related to claims in the realm of private bodies. Same i s the case in hand. 19. In the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahakari Chini Mil Ltd. Vs. Shatru ghan Nishad reported in (2003) 8 SCC 630, the Apex Court noticing the various earlier judgments held the writ petition to be not maintainable. That was a case relating to termination of service of the workmen of the Mil in question, a coo perative society. It was argued that even if the Mil is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, writ application can be entertain ed as mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against any p erson or authority which would include a private person of body. After noticing that the dispute did not involve any public function, the Apex Court held that t he jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution could no t have been invoked. In the said case, the Apex Court summarised the expression other authorities after expressing a note of caution that it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far to bring in every autonomous body which h as some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression. A note of caution was expressed that wide enlargement of the meaning must be tampered by w ise limitation. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the w rit petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that it will be open for the petitioner to pursue his remedies against th e impugned action of the respondents in appropriate forum.