IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6806 of 1999 CHIT RANJAN SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04- 22.9.2008 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, learned junior counsel to Government Advocate No.2 for respondent nos.1 to 5, and Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha for respondent no.9 (Baba Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.5.1996 (Annexure-4), whereby the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in Ravindra Nath Mukherjee Ayurvedic College, Motihari, has been dispensed with. 2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Demonstrator on daily-wage basis by the Governing Body of the College by order dated 24.5.1987 (Annexure-2). It further appears that his services were confirmed as Lecturer by order dated 28.11.1992 (Annexure-3). By the impugned order the same has been dispensed with. The petitioner had challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No.9371 of 1996 (Chit Ranjan Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar and others), which was dismissed by order dated 11.5.1998 (Annexure-5). The petitioner preferred 2 appeal which was disposed of by the following order dated 26.4.1999 (Annexure-6), passed in L.P.A. No.765 of 1998: “Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with a liberty to approach the learned Single Judge for the redress of his grievance. “Permission is granted and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge for the redress of his grievance. Sd/- Dr. J.N. Dubey Sd/- S.K. Singh It appears that the same was followed by the present writ petition. 3. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record that the petitioner was originally appointed as a daily-wage Demonstrator, vide Annexure-2, and his services were confirmed as a lecturer vide Annexure-3. The respondent-College appears to be a private college, which is not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and cannot be entertained by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3