1. This writ petition is filed b3 one Dr. N. K. Ramiah seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 viz., the Yadava Kalvi Nidhi a registered society, through its secretary, and the Secretary of the Yadava College Committee, Yadava College, Tiruppalai, Madurai, to appoint the petitioner as Member of the College Committee of the second respondent.
2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition as mentioned in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, are as follows : The petitioner, who is a M.Sc.degree holder in Zoology and a Ph.D. degree holder in that subject, is a Senior Professor in the second respondent college. The said Yadava College is a private one established and run by the first respondent. The said college is affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University and is under the control and supervision of the Director of Collegiate education. The said college is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private 61leges; (Regulation) Act 1976 (Act 19 of 1976). S. I I of which enjoins upon colleges coming under its purview to have a college committee which shall include the principal of the concerned college and, two Senior professors employed therein. R. 8 of the Rules framed under S. 53 of the said Act, dealing with the constitution of the Committee, provides that the term of the members shall be three years and the,' committee shall consist of the Principal of the College and two Senior most professors besides the representatives of the Educational Agency, who shall be nominated by such Educational agency. As per R. 8(4), whenever a vacancy arises regarding a senior most professor, the next senior most Professor shall be nominated to the committee, R. 9 deals with the power of the Educational Agency to nominate one of its representatives as secretary of the Committee. The first respondent has chosen to constitute a college committee styled as the Yadava College Committee, consisting of 11 members, of whom 7 are nominated by the first respondent, besides the Principal and two senior most professors. While so, in June 1980, the petitioner was selected and inducted into the College Committee. After his appointment, he has been serving the committee with utmost sincerity. One Nagendran, who was a Treasurer of the first respondent society, was dominating the entire college committee, acting arbitrarily and high tandedly. As a result of that, there arose bitter feelings between the petitioner and the said 'Nagendran, who even went to the extent of instigating the Principal to issue memos to the ,)petitioner without any reasonable cause. The petitioner, suspecting that the said Nagendran was trying to remove him and replace him by nominating the third respondent in collusion with respondents I and 2, and in connivance With the other members of the college committee, issued a lawyer's notice dt. 5-11-1981, to the second respondent calling upon ,he second respondent to recognise him as a continuing member of the college committee. the second respondent sent a reply containing false allegations, stating that the petitioner's term of office had expired as early as on 30-4-1981, and that another committee had been re-constituted on 6-9-1981, in which two professors inclusive of the third respondent were inducted and the petitioner was no longer continuing in the college committee. Then, he petitioner filed a suit in the court of the District Munsif, Melur in O.S.413 of 1982, for declaration of his lawful rights to continue as u member of the college committee and for consequential reliefs. The learned District Munsif, though on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence he came to the conclusion that the appointment of the third respondent was in violation of the Rules, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. Hence this writ petition.
3. The petitioner has raised various grounds, inter alia, contending that the first and the second respondents have, without any reason, chosen to abruptly terminate the petitioner's appointment, which is against the elementary canons of justice, that the attitude of respondents I and 2 in having designated the third respondent as a senior most professor s invalid and illegal, that the third respondent an never be said to have acquired a right or privilege as senior over the petitioner under the guise of .Ms. 1993, dated 21-5-1980, and that respondents I and 2 have abused heir power and acted in an utterly mala fide I fashion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to address argument about the maintainability of the writ petition as this Court felt that the petition may not be maintainable.
5. Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, has submitted that the first respondent society, which is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act should be deemed to have come within the expression 'other authorities' contemplated in the definition of 'State' in Art. 12 of the Constitution and as such the writ petition is maintainable, In Support of this contention, he has placed reliance on two decisions, viz., Harijander Singh v. Kakatiya Medical College, : AIR1975AP35 (FB) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Nlujib : (1981)ILLJ103SC .
6. In the first decision, a question arose whether a writ petition under Art. 226 lay against the said medical college which, though privately run, was affiliated to the Osmania University and received grant from the public exchequer from the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is to be noted that the University and the State Government have their representatives on the managing committee of the said medical college. The learned Judge, having regard to the facts of the case, held that a writ can issue against a non-statutory body even if it violates administrative or executive directions or instructions or acts in violation of the principles of natural justice. After going through the above decision, I am of the view that the principles laid down therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand, for the simple reason that there is no violation of I fie principles of natural justice in this case and that the college committee in this case cannot be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the Government.
7. In the next decision relied on by the learned counsel, viz., Ajay Hasia's case, : (1981)ILLJ103SC , it has been pointed out by the Supreme Court as follows :-
'The concept of instrumentality or agency of the Government is not limited to a Corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to a company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the committee or society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression' authority' in Art. 12.'
Basing on the above observation, the learned counsel would attempt to state that the College committee is an authority and hence a writ will follow. One should not lose sight of the fact that the Government has nothing to do with this college committee. In fact, in para 3 of the affidavit filed in W.M.P. 5902 of 1994. seeking an interim direction, it is stated thus :
'The said Yadava College is a private one established and run by the first respondent which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies registration Act.' Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case, have held that the test is whether the society or corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government. Having regard to the memorandum of association and the rules of the society, the composition of the society being dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, with the approval of the Central Government, etc dismissed. the Supreme Court has in that case held that the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, established under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, was an authority. Coming to the present case, the committee is constituted, as borne out from the averments made in para 5 of the affidavit of the petitioner, consisting of 11 members viz., seven nominated by the first respondent, the principal of the college and two senior-most professors, in addition to one member nominated by the University. The State Government is not having any control over the affairs of the committee and hence, having regard to the facts of this case, I am of the view that this college committee cannot be said to be an authority within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India.
8. It is pertinent to note some more of the decisions of the Supreme Court on this aspect. In Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain : (1976)IILLJ163SC , the Supreme Court has observed as follows
'It seems to us that before an institution can be a statutory body it must be created by or under the statute and owe its existence to a statute. This must be the primary thing which has got to be established. Here a distinction must be made between an institution which is not created by or under a statute but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper maintenance and administration of the institution. There have been a number of institutions which though not created by or under any statute have adopted certain statutory provisions, but that by itself is not, in our opinion, sufficient to clothe the institution with a statutory character. See also S. S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi : 1981CriLJ871 ,
9. When the facts of the present case are examined. in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the above decisions, it is clear that the college committee in this case is not created by or under any statute, but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper administration of the committee and therefore the present writ petition against private college committee is not maintainable.
10. Accordingly. this writ petition is dismissed
11. Petition dismissed.