Dr.Shesh Nath Tiwary And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1853 of 2012 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7684 of 2003 ===========================================================
1. Dr.Shesh Nath Tiwary, son of Sita Ram Tiwary resident of Bhabhua Town, Ward No. 3, P.S. + P.O. - Bhabhua, District - Kaimur (Bhabhua)
2. Ramakant Upadhyaya son of Ramadhar Upadhyaya resident of village - Bhekash, P.O. - Akhalashpur, P.S. - Bhabhua, Distt. Kaimur (Bhabhua) .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Kaimur-Cum-President Managing Committee, Mahila Mhaidyalaya, Bhabhua 3.
The Sub-Divisional Office (S.D.O.) Bhabhua-Cum-Secretary, Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Bhabhua
4. The Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah (Inspector of Colleges)
5. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah (Inspector of Colleges)
6. Dr. Mrs. Tara Singh W/O Sri Krishna Kant Singh C/O Din Bandhu Singh Advocate, resident of Bhabhua Town Ward No. 5, P.S. and P.O. - Bhabhua, District - Kaimur .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellants :
Mr. Achaibar Singh, Advocate For the Resp. 4 & 5 :
Mr. Rajesh Pd. Chaudhary, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate, SC-33 Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 24-06-2016 The teacher of a private College, affiliated to Magadh University, challenges the action of the private governing body in making ad hoc arrangement for Incharge Principal. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no governmental action or State action was in question. It was a private institution, and as such, the writ
Patna High Court LPA No.1853 of 2012 dt.24-06-2016 2 / 2 petition was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant once again recreates the issue.
Having considered the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/- U