The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that matters related to the affairs or service conditions of employees in private affiliated colleges, including removal by the managing committee, cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction unless specific statutory guidelines exist. This judgment upholds binding precedent set by earlier Division Bench authority, clarifies the role of subsequent administrative guidelines, and sustains its value as binding authority for similar future cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWJC/12243/2017 of Ramvichar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors |
| CNR | BRHC010080992017 |
| Date of Registration | 23-08-2017 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Bihar |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Smt. Radha Kumari Singh v. The Governing Body of Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalaya (1977 PLJR 110) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked for service matters against private managing committees of affiliated colleges in absence of statutory guidelines. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Patna High Court held that in the absence of statutory rules or guidelines governing the service conditions of employees in private affiliated colleges, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to challenge actions of a private managing committee. The judgment affirms the binding authority of the Division Bench decision in Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (1977 PLJR 110), which holds that such disputes are not maintainable under writ except where a statutory framework exists. Even where subsequent guidelines were issued, the competent authority for such service matters remains the college’s managing committee as per the new rules. The correct remedy is to approach a civil court or designated authority, not writ jurisdiction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Smt. Radha Kumari Singh v. The Governing Body of Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalaya, 1977 PLJR 110 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The decision reaffirms earlier Division Bench precedent, adds reference to administrative guidelines issued in 2019 clarifying that the managing committee is the competent authority, and relies on the principle that writ jurisdiction does not extend to private institutions absent statutory regime. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a former employee of a private affiliated college, challenged alleged illegal removal in writ proceedings. The same dispute had been previously dismissed in 2012 on grounds of non-maintainability, and the Division Bench in LPA No. 968 of 2012 also affirmed that only a civil court or, if guidelines exist, the Board could be approached. No such guidelines existed in 2012, and later guidelines (from 2019) assign authority to the internal managing committee. The petitioner’s belated representation to the Board was unexplained and writ jurisdiction was again denied. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Bihar |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing similar questions regarding writ jurisdiction over private colleges |
| Follows | Smt. Radha Kumari Singh v. The Governing Body of Mahanth Mahadevanand Mahila Mahavidyalaya (1977 PLJR 110) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ petitions are not maintainable in service disputes involving private managing committees of affiliated colleges if no statutory rules or guidelines govern service conditions.
- A clarificatory distinction is made between the absence of such guidelines in 2012 and their subsequent issuance in 2019, which does not confer writ jurisdiction.
- The competent authority for such service matters—even under current guidelines—is the internal managing committee, not state or education board.
- Emphasises the necessity of exhausting civil remedies before seeking writ redressal in similar contexts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined its previous decision in CWJC No. 20495 of 2012, dismissed for lack of maintainability per the Division Bench precedent of Smt. Radha Kumari Singh (1977 PLJR 110).
- The Division Bench in LPA No. 968 of 2012 upheld the writ court’s view, holding that writ jurisdiction does not lie for managing committee disputes of private colleges except where statutory guidelines are in place.
- The court noted the Bihar School Examination Board’s affidavit stating that no service condition guidelines existed in 2012 for employees of private affiliated colleges; new guidelines arose only in 2019.
- Under the 2019 guidelines, authority over service conditions (teaching and non-teaching) remains vested with the college’s own managing committee or governing body.
- The judgment accordingly holds, both on law and updated administrative rules, that writ proceedings are not an appropriate remedy.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought writ relief regarding service matter — i.e., action taken by managing committee of a private affiliated college.
- Cited previous Division Bench direction allowing representation to Board if guidelines existed.
Respondents (State / Bihar School Examination Board)
- Argued, via counter-affidavit, that at the relevant period no service condition guidelines existed.
- Submitted that even under subsequent guidelines (from 2019), service matters remain under the authority of college’s managing committee, not the Board.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a former employee of a private affiliated college in Saran, Bihar, had previously challenged his removal in 2012 through a writ petition, which was dismissed for non-maintainability in view of existing precedent. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal, with the Division Bench clarifying that writ jurisdiction lies only if statutory guidelines exist. The petitioner submitted a delayed representation to the Education Board in 2017, but no guidelines governed such issues at the relevant time. In 2019, the Board issued new guidelines, but these vested final authority in the college’s own managing committee. The present writ was filed challenging administrative inaction regarding the petitioner’s removal.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses the absence of Board-framed statutory guidelines or regulations for the service conditions of employees of private affiliated colleges up to 2012.
- A 2019 set of guidelines (citing specific clauses: 3(1), 3(7), 27, 31 of Chapter 3, and 36(II) of Chapter 4) is acknowledged, but these designate the managing committee/governing body as the competent authority for such matters.
- No interpretation expanding or restricting the application of any statute was undertaken, as the case turned entirely on the existence (or not) of governing rules.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.