Si PETITiONERS RESPONDENTS H10H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Cl No.1453 of 2009 1. Dayanand Shiksha Samiti, a Society duly ragistered under the relevant prowsions of the C.G. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyara, 1972, having its registration No. 78 year 1961 and regisiered office at Arya Nagar, Durg, acting in Vhe premises through its Authorised Signatory Shri Dr. Raghvendra Singh Gupta, son of Late Dharampal Singh GupSa, aged about 58 yssrs, residsnt of Baniyapara, Durg. 2. Ghanshyam Singh Arya Kanya Mahavidya!ay, Durg, a college run and managed by Dayangnd Shiksha Samiti, through its Chairman, Governing Body (President, Administrative Committee) Dr.Raghvendra Singh Gupta, son of Late Dharampai Singh Gupta, aged abut 58 years, resident of Baniyapara, Durg. Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiay, Raipur 2) The Secretary, Minishy of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur 3) The Directorate of Higher Education, through ths Commissioner, Govt. Science Coltege Premises, Raipur 4) Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Unwersity, Raipur through its Registrar, G.E. Road, Raipur 5) Dr. Jeevan Lal Bhardwaj, Director, College Development Council, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur 6) Dr. Smt. Vibha Singh, Assistant Lecturer(Po!itical Science), Ghanshyam Singh Arya Kanya Mahavidhyaiay, Arya Nagar, Durg ^~y (Writ Petition under Artteie 226 of the ConsUtution of indiaV Singh Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Surata Jain, Panei Lawyerfor ths State/respondsnts No. 1,2and3. ORALORDER (Passed on this 9 day of Aprii, 2009) 1) The petitioners impugn the letter dated 21.1.2009, written by Director, College Development Council to Secretary-cum-Commisioner, Higher Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Science College Area, Raipur, whereunder, the subject was "action; taken against Ghanshyam Singh Arya Kanya Mahavidhyalay, Duig." 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the basis of prayer made in the writ petition for appointment of respondent No.8, Dr. Smt, Vibha Singh, as Principal of the College of petitioner No.2, is iiiegal, arbitrary and against the mandatory provisions. 3) The impugned letter dated 21.1.2009 is not an order, appointing respondent No.6 as PrincijMl. It appears to be some correspondence between the two authorities, which cannot be heid as a substantial ordsr granfing or making any appointment in favour of any respondent i.e. respondent No.6. 4) Thus, the petition is premature and, as such, the same is not maintainabl®. If a new cause of action arises, the petitioners are aiwavs at liberty to take recourse ofjudicial forum, ifso advised. 5) The petition is accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge