CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6007 OF 1996 ----- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----- DR.DEEP NARAIN MISHRA s/o late Gopaljee Mishra,Senior Most Lecturer & Former Principal, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Ayurvedic College, Motihari, Police Station- Motihari Muffosil, District-East Champaran.--------------------------------Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Health ,Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, at Muzaffarpur through its Vice Chancellor, at Muzaffarpur. 4. The Governing Body of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Ayurved College, Motihari through its Secretary, at Motihari, District- East Champaran. 5. The Principal Incharge, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Ayurved College, Motihari, District- East Champaran. 6. Sri Sita Ram Singh, Secretary, Governing Body of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Ayurved College, Motihari, District- East Champaran. 7. Mohd. Yazul Haque, the President, Governing Body of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Ayurved College, Motihari, District- East Champaran. 8. The District Indigenous Medical Officer, Member, Governing Body of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Ayurved College, Motihari, District- East Champaran. 9. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 10. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Ex-Convener, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Ayurved College, at Motihari, District- East Champaran. 11. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar at Patna. ----------------------Respondents ----------- P R E S E N T : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH Navaniti Prasad Singh, J:- The petitioner challenges Annexure 5 and Annexure 12 by which the Governing Body of the private Ayurvedic College dismissed him from service while he was - 2 - serving as a Principle thereof. Notices were issued to the College and the Governing Body but no one has appeared. Having perused the record and seen the proceeding of the Governing Body, on both occasions notices were sent to the petitioner, who refused to receive them and as such Governing Body took a decision in that regard. It may be noted that challenging the decision of the Governing Body, the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit, which after two years, he withdrew and then filed this writ petition. In my view, the writ petition merits no consideration, for even if it was to be allowed this Court could not pass any order of re-instatement inasmuch as the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation nor this Court can grant any monetary relief to the petitioner, who had not worked at all. This Court does not decide the matter in which relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned orders are not interfered with. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court, The 6th of May, 2011, S.Singh NAFR (Navaniti Prasad Singh)