Page No.# 1/26 GAHC010192702024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4833/2024 KABIR AHMED S/O- ABDUL HASHIM, R/O- VILL- AND P.O. RATABARI, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788735 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788710 4:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EDUCATION) KARIMGANJ P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788710 5:THE SECRETARY BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 21 ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA (NR. BAL BHAWAN) Page No.# 2/26 NEW DELHI- 110002 6:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DARGAKONA CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011 7:THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE RAMKRISHNA MISSION ROAD P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710 8:THE SECRETARY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE RAMKRISHNA MISSION ROAD P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710 9:THE PRINCIPAL (I/C) KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE RAMKRISHNA MISSION ROAD P.O. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR. P MAHANTA (R-5),MR SISHIR DUTTA(R- 7,8,9),MR S DUTTA (R- 7,8,9),MR. S DUTTA(R- 7,8,9),MS K BORAH(R- 7,8,9),MR. S DUTTA(R- 7,8,9),GA, ASSAM Linked Case : WP(C)/2330/2024 KABIR AHMED S/O- ABDUL HASHIM R/O- VILL. AND P.O. RATABARI Page No.# 3/26 DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788735. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 28 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ P.O. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 4:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EDUCATION) KARIMGANJ P.O. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 5:THE PRINCIPAL I/C KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE R.K. MISSION ROAD P.O. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 6:MISSION RANJAN DAS PRESIDENT C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 7:PURNENDU DASTIDAR Page No.# 4/26 VICE-PRESIDENT C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 8:BIDHAN CH. BHATTACHARJEE SECRETARY/JT. SECRETARY C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 9:RABIJIT CHAKRABORTY SECRETARY/JT. SECRETARY C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 10:SURESH ROY BARMAN SECRETARY/JT. SECRETARY C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 11:BIPLAB DEB TREASURER C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 12:ABDUL MUKTADIR CHOUDHURY MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. Page No.# 5/26 13:ABU SALEH NIJAMUDDIN MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 14:MUKUNDA LAL KOIRI MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 15:SUBHRADEEP PAUL MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 16:AJIJUR RAHMAN MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 17:RAJIB DAS PURKAYASTHA MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 18:DILIP KR. DAS MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE Page No.# 6/26 C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 19:BISWA BARAN BARUAH MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 20:DEBOJYOTI ROY MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 21:PIKLU DAS MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 22:HIRAK DUTTA MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 23:ANTARA DEY (KAR) MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ Page No.# 7/26 ASSAM PIN- 788710. 24:PAROMITA CHOUDHURY MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 25:NIRMAL BANIK MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 26:RAJ SHEKHAR DUTTA MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 27:SHARBANI CHOUDHURY MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 28:PRADIP CHOUDHURY MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. Page No.# 8/26 29:SANJIT PAUL MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF KARIMGANJ LAW COLLEGE C/O- PRINCIPAL (I/C) OF THE COLLEGE P.O. R.K. MISSION ROAD DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. ------------ Advocate for : MR. M KHAN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 28 ORS Page No.# 9/26 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date:11.09.2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners in the above noted 2(two) writ petitions. Also heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Ms. S. Mochahari, learned counsel representing the Karimganj Law College Respondents in the above noted 2(two) writ petitions. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the above noted writ petitions being interconnected and involving the same parties, were heard analogously and is being disposed of by this order. WP(C).No.2330/2024 The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition had presented a challenge to a notification dated 04.07.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, constituting a Management Committee for Karimganj Law College. The petitioner has also assailed the actions taken by the Management Committee of Karimganj Law College in placing him under suspension vide issuance of order dated 04.01.2024 and also institution of a departmental proceeding against him vide issuance of show-cause notice dated 28.02.2024. WP(C).No.4833/2024 The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition assailing an order dated 26.06.2024 by which, on conclusion of the departmental proceeding instituted against him, a penalty of dismissal from service Page No.# 10/26 was imposed upon him. 3. The facts in brief leading to the institution of the above noted Writ Petitions is noticed as under; The Karimganj Law College (herein after called as the ‘Law College’), established in the District of Karimganj, is a privately managed Law College. The said Law College is professionally affiliated by the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, and academically affiliated with the Assam University, Silchar. The petitioner, herein, was appointed as a Principal of the said Law College vide an order of an appointment dated 01.09.2014. As projected by the petitioner, the affairs of the Law College was being managed by a “Steering Committee”. The Steering Committee had taken steps for formation of a Society for management of the Law College. However during the process of formation of a Executive Committee for the society, few members approached the jurisdictional District Commissioner requiring his interference. Accordingly, at the instance of the jurisdictional District Commissioner, a meeting was convened on 14.02.2023. The petitioner on being so required, had also participated in the said meeting. It is further projected that at his own instance and at the behest of vested interest the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner had shown constitution of an Ad-hoc Committee for the Law College in the said meeting held on 14.02.2023. Accordingly, the jurisdictional District Commissioner, vide notice dated 21.03.2023 notified the names of the members of the Ad-hoc Management Committee of the Law College. It is further projected that the Ad-hoc Management Committee, on being constituted, was required to take steps for constitution of new Page No.# 11/26 Management Committee for the Law College with public consensus within a period of 3(three) months. The petitioner submits that he had objected to the formation of the Ad-hoc Committee and had submitted a representation in the matter. On 16.06.2023, a meeting of the Ad-hoc Committee, as constituted earlier, was convened and, therein, deliberations were held for constitution of a new Management Committee for the College. In the meeting upon such deliberation being made, a Management Committee of consisting of 29(Twenty Nine) members came to be formed. In pursuance to the constitution of the said Management Committee in the meeting held on 16.06.2023, the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, notified the names of the members of the newly constituted members of the Management Committee of the Law College vide notice dated 04.07.2023. The Management Committee as notified vide the notification dated 04.07.2023, held its meeting on 24.12.2024, on its premises and, therein, constituted an Executive Committee consisting of 15(fifteen) members for the management of the College. The Executive Committee as constituted was to manage the affairs of the college. Upon the constitution of the new Management Committee and it having come to the notice of the Management Committee, about existence of allegations of commission of misconduct by the petitioner, herein, while discharging his duties as Principal of the College, a resolution came to be adopted in its meeting held on 03.01.2024, to place the petitioner under suspension, pending drawal of departmental proceedings against him. Page No.# 12/26 In terms of the decision arrived at in the meeting of the Management Committee, the Secretary, Managing Committee of the Law College, vide order dated 04.01.2024, proceeded to place the petitioner, herein, under suspension. The petitioner also handed over the charge of the post of the Principal of Law College on 04.01.2024. Thereafter, the Secretary, Management Committee of the College, as the disciplinary authority, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, herein, framing charges, therein against the petitioner, of defalcation of huge amount, illegal collection of amounts from students, illegal appointments etc, during his tenure as the Principal of the College. The petitioner being aggrieved with the manner in which the Management Committee of the College was constituted by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, vide notice dated 04.07.2023, and the action taken by the Management Committee to place him under suspension and thereafter to institute Departmental Proceedings against him, approached this Court, by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.2330/2024, assailing the said actions. During the pendency of the said writ petition, there being no interim directions passed by this Court in the matter, staying the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner, the Law College authorities proceeded with the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner. It is projected that the petitioner having challenged the departmental proceedings on the ground of jurisdiction of the authority, to institute such proceedings against him, he had not submitted his written statement in pursuance to the show- cause notice issued to him and further had not participated in the Page No.# 13/26 enquiry held, in the matter. The disciplinary authority after completion of the enquiry proceeded to issue an order dated 26.06.2024, holding therein that the charges leveled against the petitioner of being proved in the enquiry held, and accordingly, basing on the said conclusion the petitioner came to be imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had assailed the order dated 26.06.2024, by way of instituting the writ petition being WP(C).No.4883/2024. 4. Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the committees including the Management Committee for the college having been constituted by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, the said committee is non est in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the Law College being a private college and functioning without any aid being received from the Government, the District Commissioner, Karimganj, did not have any jurisdiction to constitute the Management Committee for the college. He submits that the Management Committee having been constituted by an authority not having jurisdiction in the matter, the Management Committee as constituted by the college vide the notification dated 04.07.2023, is non est in the eye of law and any decision taken by the said committee would be of no consequence. 5. Mr. M. Khan, submits that the order of suspension and as well as the decision to institute departmental proceeding against him, having been so taken by a committee constituted dehors the procedure mandated for constitution of such committee for the college, in question, the said decisions would be inconsequential and would call Page No.# 14/26 for an interference by this Court. Mr. M. Khan, submits that the departmental proceedings against him having been so instituted by a illegally constituted Management Committee for the College, in question, he had refrained from participating in the said proceedings and had challenged the same by way of instituting of WP(C).no.2330/2024. 6. Mr. M. Khan, further submits that the Managing Committees taking advantage of the fact that no interim directions happened to be passed by this Court in the proceedings of WP(C).no.2330/2024, proceeded to take the departmental proceedings instituted against him to its logical conclusion, without his participation, therein, and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. 7. Mr. M. Khan, by referring to the manner in which the Management Committee of the college was so constituted by the Deputy Commissioner vide notification dated 04.07.2023, submits that the same being so constituted by an authority not having any jurisdiction to do so, Governmental interference with the affairs of the private college not being permissible, the very constitution of the Management Committee, for the college by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, vide notification dated 04.07.2023, being non est, the same would call for an interference by this Court. Mr. M. Khan, submits that in the event, this Court interferes with the notification 04.07.2023, the consequential actions taken by the said Management Committee, including the imposition upon the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service would also mandate an interference from this Court. Page No.# 15/26 8. In support of his submissions Mr. M. Khan, has referred to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Dinesh Chandra Barman Versus State of Assam and Others, Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2020, in WP(C).No.6087/2019. 9. Per Contra, Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Karimganj Law College Respondents had submitted that a Steering Committee was initially formed for the college. The said Steering Committee, thereafter held a meeting on 14.02.2023, for constitution of a Ad-hoc Management Committee of the college. He submits that the Ad-hoc Management Committee of the college was not so formed by the Deputy Commissioner, but was so formed by Steering Committee as constituted for the college, in question. It is further submitted that the Ad-hoc Management Committee on being constituted by the Steering Committee in its meeting held on 14.02.2023, the same was notified by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, vide notice dated 21.03.2023 who was associated with the college as an ex-officio member of the Management Committee till 2013. 10. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that there being a dispute with regard to the constitution of the Management Committee, the Deputy Commissioner had only acted in the matter as a mediator, and in pursuance to such mediation, the Ad-hoc Management Committee came to be formed. It is projected that it is the said Ad-hoc Management Committee so formed, which had proceeded to form the Management for the Law College in its meeting held on 16.06.2023. Page No.# 16/26 11. By referring to the notification dated 04.07.2023, issued by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, Mr. S. Dutta, submits that the same be viewed as a Ministerial act and the names of the Management Committee members were notified by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, on the Management Committee being constituted by the Ad-hoc Management Committee in its meeting held on 16.06.2023. Mr. S. Dutta, reiterates that the notification dated 04.07.2023, was not an unilateral action taken by the District Commissioner, Karimranj, in the matter and accordingly, the same cannot be projected to be an interference with the Management of a private college by a Governmental authority. 12. Mr. S. Dutta, by taking this Court through the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Dinesh Chandra Barman(supra), submits that the said decision in view of the distinguishing facts existing in the present matter would have no application to the facts of the present case. Mr. S. Dutta, in support of his decision placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society and Another Versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 14. At the outset this Court would consider the issue raised by the petitioner in the proceedings of WP(C).No.2330/2024, with regard to the constitution of the Management Committee of the college vide notification dated 04.07.2023, issued by the District Commissioner, Page No.# 17/26 Karimganj. 15. The materials brought on record reveals that the Karimganj Law College, was constituted in the year 1984, and the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, was the Ex-Officio President of the Steering Committee of the College. The College is being run by its Management Committee(previously known as its Steering Committee) without any financial aid from the Government. The Karimganj Law College, being a private college, no governmental approval is required for constitution of a Management Committee of the College and/or for its day to day management. 16. It is seen that an impasse had occassioned in the constitution of a Management Committee of the College and accordingly, under the guidance of the District Commissioner, Karimganj, a meeting of the Steering Committee of the College, was convened on 16.06.2023. The said meeting was not presided over by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, but was presided over by one Biswa Baran Baruah, who was the President of District Advocate Bar Association, Karimganj. The petitioner, herein, had also participated in the said meeting. The meeting deliberated upon the issue of constitution of a Ad-hoc Management Committee for the College and upon such deliberation a 29(twenty nine) member body was so formed in the said meeting as the Management Committee of the College, in question. The Ad-hoc Management Committee of the College having been formed in the said meeting dated 16.06.2023, the District Commissioner proceeded to notify the same, as per the requirement made of him in the meeting held on 16.06.2023 for notifying the names of the members forming Page No.# 18/26 the Ad-hoc Management Committee of the College, in question. 17. This Court, notices that although averments came to made in the writ petitions with regard to the constitution of the Ad-hoc Management Committee in the meeting held on 14.02.2023 and the notification of the names of the members of the Ad-hoc Management Committee by the jurisdictional District Committee, vide notice dated 21.03.2023, no challenge thereto was presented by the petitioner to the same in either of the above noted writ petitions. Accordingly, the validity of the notice dated 21.03.2023 is not required to be examined by this Court. 18. Having noticed the manner in which the Management Committee of the Law College was so formed, this Court finds that the constitution of the Management Committee was not so made by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, but was so made by a body otherwise constituted for the College, in question. The mere notification of the names of members of the Management Committee formed for the College, by the Ad-hoc Management Committee earlier constituted, in no way reflects an interference by a Governmental authority in the management of the affairs of Karimganj Law College, which is otherwise a private College. Mere notification of the names of the members by the District Commissioner, vide Notice dated 04.07.2023, who otherwise was also till 2013, involved with the management of the College as an Ex-Officio President of the earlier Steering Committee, in no way reflects that the said constitution was so done without reference to the persons otherwise involved with the affairs of the College, in question. Accordingly, this Court, is of the Page No.# 19/26 considered view that by mere notification of the names of the members of the Management Committee by the jurisdictional District Commissioner, vide notification dated 04.07.2023, a presumption is not permissible to be drawn of an interference being made in the affairs of a private College by a governmental authority. Further, it is also noticed by this Court that the petitioner, was in the know how of the constitution of the said Management Committee for the Law College, vide the Notice dated 04.07.2023, inasmuch as, he was then the Principal of the College and no challenge was immediately presented to such constitution of the Management Committee for the College and the petitioner had presented the challenge, after considerable lapse of time, when decisions came to be taken by the said Management Committee to place him under suspension, followed by initiation of departmental proceedings, against him. 19. The petitioner had in support of his submission place reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Dinesh Chandra Barman(supra). This Court has perused the said decision and finds that, therein, the Governing body of a private Law College, was superseded by the Government of Assam in the Higher Education Department. It is the said action that was under challenge in the said Writ Petition. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on noticing the manner in which the Governing Body of the Law College involved, was superseded by the Government in the Higher Education Department, proceeded to draw conclusions that the College, therein, being a private College, not receiving substantial financial assistance from the Government, no action was permissible to be taken unilaterally by the Governmental Authorities, without affording a Page No.# 20/26 proper opportunity of hearing to such private Law College. 20. Basing on the said conclusions drawn, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court proceeded to interfere with the order issued towards superseding the Governing Body of the Law College involved, therein, along with the order issued towards appointing an Administrator for the Management of the College. The said decision would have no application to the facts involved in the present writ petitions, inasmuch as, there is no unilateral action found to have been taken by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, towards constituting the Management Committee of the college, in question, by issuance of the notification dated 04.07.2023. As noticed, hereinabove, the said formation of the Management Committee, for the college, in question, was so done by a body otherwise authorized for the purpose and the District Commissioner, Karimganj, had only notified a body which was already so formed by a body otherwise competent. This Courts holds that the notification dated 04.07.2023, not having reflected any interference made in the matter of Management of the Karimganj Law College, a private Law College, and the same being issued only towards notifying the names of the members of the Management Committee already formed by the District Commissioner, Karimganj, the same would not call for any interference by this Court. 21. Having drawn the above conclusions, with regard to the manner of constitution of the Management Committee of Karimganj Law College and this Court having not interfered with the same, would bring this Court to consider the challenge made by the writ petitioner in the above noted writ petitions to the departmental proceedings Page No.# 21/26 instituted against him as well as the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon him on conclusion of such Departmental Proceeding instituted in the matter. 22. 22. It is an admitted position, that the Karimganj Law College is discharging the function of providing education in the filed of Law and accordingly, it can be said to be discharging a public function and therefore, whether or not it is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, by virtue of the nature of function providing education, which is a public duty, the Karimganj Law College would come within the purview of the meaning “any person or authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”. Even if it is assumed that Karimganj Law College, being an educational institution, is imparting public duty, the issue involved, herein, in the present proceedings must be demonstrated to have a direct nexus with the discharge of such public duty. It only when the issue involved in the present proceedings is found by this Court to have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty, a right would be deemed to have been conferred upon the petitioner, herein, to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a prerogative writ. 23. The issue arising in the present proceedings is with regard to the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner and the imposition upon him of a penalty of dismissal from service, this Court finds that the same pertains to contract of service between the Law College and the petitioner, herein. The said contract of service is an ordinary contract of service having no statutory force or backing. The Page No.# 22/26 departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner by the college is an internal affair between the college and the petitioner, herein, and would be covered only within the confines of a ordinary contract of service and the decision to impose upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service being within the realm of ordinary contract of service, this Court is of the considered view that a writ petition in the matter would not be maintainable. 24. The said issue was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society(supra) and had drawn the following conclusions ; “75. We may sum up our final conclusions as under: 75.1. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public. 75.2. Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article Page No.# 23/26 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the status of "State" within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element. 75.3. It must be consequently held that while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a constitutional court, Its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service. 75.4. Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the term, an employee of a non-teaching staff engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration or internal management is only an agency created by it. It is immaterial whether "A" or "B" is employed by school to discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract between a school and non-teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the Page No.# 24/26 obligation to impart education. This Is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non- teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered with by the Court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty. 75.5. From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it is apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. In other words, the action challenged has no public element and writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the action was essentially of a private character.” 25. Applying the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society (supra) to the facts of the present case, we find that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the above noted writ petitions, pertaining to the institution of a departmental proceedings against him and also imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service upon him, is at best a breach of mutual contracts between the petitioner and the College without having any public element attached to it, as its integral part and therefore would not be permissible to be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue being one of personal service of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter. This Court further holds that the contract of employment between the petitioner and the College, can’t and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation on the part of the College to impart education. The Page No.# 25/26 petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the service conditions of the petitioner in the Law College as its Principal was governed by any statutory provision, violation of which would permit him to maintain a writ petition before this Court. 26. In view of the above discussions, this Court holds that the writ petitions to be not maintainable on the technical aspect of maintainability of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in respect of an ordinary contract of service between the petitioner and the Karimganj Law College. Accordingly, this Court holds that the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the above noted writ petitions pertaining to the departmental proceedings instituted against him and the penalty imposed upon him, thereon, would not be permissible to be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 27. In view of the above conclusions, reached by this Court, both on the count of the validity the constitution of the Management Committee of the Karimganj Law College as well with regard to the challenge as presented to the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner, herein, including the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service, the writ petitions are held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stand dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. 28. Before parting with the records, this Court provides that the writ petition having being dismissed on a technical aspects as indicated above, more particularly with regard to the challenge, therein, to the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner, herein, and Page No.# 26/26 the penalty so imposed upon him, this Court provides that the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the same by way of instituting an appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum, in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant