Rajesh Sahay v. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary for Higher Education, New Secretariat

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5457 of 2009 ====================================================== Dr.Kamal Kishore Singh S/o Sri Sarda Prasad Singh, resident of Vill- Sonpura, P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Distt. Saharsa and present resident at Flat No.5, Vijay Laxmi Complex, Sohsarai, Biharsharif, Distt. Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary for Higher Education, New Secretariat, Patna- 15

2. Vice Chancellor, Magadh university, At+PO Bodh Gaya, Distt. Gaya 3. Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna- 15 Patna High Court CWJC No.5314 of 2009 (10) dt.12-02-2013

4. Registrar, Magadh University, At+PO Bodh Gaya, Distt. Gaya 5. Finance Officer, Magadh University, At+PO Bodh Gaya, Distt. Gaya 6. Shah Javedy, Secretary, Council of Allama Iqbal College, Biharsharif, Distt. Nalanda, PIN 803101

7. Principal, Allama Iqbal College, Biharsharif, Distt. Nalanda, PIN 803101 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.5314 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh Mr. Jayram Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr. SSS Hussain, GP 14 Mr. Krishna Kant Singh For the University : Mr K. D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate Mr K. N. Singh, Sr. Advocate (In CWJC No.5324 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh Mr. Jayram Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP 2 For the University : Mr K. D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate Mr K. N. Singh, Sr. Advocate (In CWJC No.5457 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh Mr. Jayram Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr. G. K. Agrawal, GA 10 Mr K. N. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the University : Mr K. D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arif Danla Siddiqui, AC to GA 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 10 12-02-2013 All the three writ applications have been filed by these petitioners against the decision of their termination of service by the management of what is known as Allama Iqbal College, Biharsharif, Nalanda. The Court is not required to go into the merits of the writ applications in view of a preliminary objection having been raised on the basis of a recent decision, which has Patna High Court CWJC No.5314 of 2009 (10) dt.12-02-2013 been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 269. Stand of the management of the institution is that the same institution was under judicial scrutiny when a prayer for mandamus was made by the said petitioner, a lecturer in the Department of Political Science, against the action or grievance raised therein. After having taken into consideration various facets of the arguments advanced by both sides, the Court concluded as under, in paragraph 18: “18. In the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that no writ can be issued to grant any relief to the writ petitioner who is seeking a personal right of restoration of contract of service against Managing Committee of a private minority college. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that no writ would lie against private respondents in absence of any right in the petitioner with corresponding duty of a public nature upon the respondents.” In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners has brought the attention of this Court to yet another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 571, wherein a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that writ is maintainable against a private party for a public Patna High Court CWJC No.5314 of 2009 (10) dt.12-02-2013 interest element present in such action, which was under challenge in that case. It was a case of non- aided private institution whereas in the present case, the institution is aided by the State and funded, which is not a matter of dispute. This judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was probably not placed before the Division Bench. Whatever be the fall out of the ratio of the decision cited by the petitioners in the case of K. Krishnamacharyulu (supra), the facts stand that this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench, which has been recently rendered in relation to the same institution and it may not be permitted for this Court sitting singly to ignore the said judgment or hold it to be per incuriam as such. In totality, therefore, the writ applications are dismissed taking a cue from the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Santosh Kumar (supra) as well as the observation of the Division Bench contained in paragraph 18, which has been reproduced above. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)