# Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalantia Collete EflpurJ. 1Hl Dr. Ra• Shivtf'Wa B•ltad!lr

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 144
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-07-19
- **Case number:** writ of mandomua. CrvIL APrEJ,LA.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 403 of 1961
- **Bench:** B.P. ScNHA, C. J .. J. L. Kapur, M. HmAYA.TULLAK, J.C. Shah, J. R. MuDHOLK.\R
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-rai-shivendra-bahadur-v-the-governing-body-of-the-nalantia-collete-eflpurj-2585
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

•
Wrif of Ma11da011J.1-.\'alarula College ajJlliaUd lo BiMr
Uni•:eraity-Appoinlmenl of Principal-Legal r;ght, if anv toil4regard to que.trion of appointmu•t-lf and when writ can w ..
Unit'<r.<it.~ of Bihar Ael 1951 (Bih1r 27 of 1951), Univeraily
Statute XV 1-Con•litution of India, Art, 226.
The appellant"was appointed as the Principal ofNalanda
College affiliated to the Bihar L'nivenity in 1958. As requir.
ed by the University Statute XVI this fact was intimated to
the University, bHt the appointment w•s not approved by the
Syndicate as required by Art. 5, of the Untveristy Statute,
In 1960 a new governing body resolved to appoint a new prinr.ipal and decided that in the mr.antime the appellant was to
continue to act till the new appointment was made. The
governing body interviewed candidates including the appellant
and by a resolution authorised iu Chairman to make a final
selection. The validity of the selection of the Principal was
challenged by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution by asking a w.itc of mandamua to issue.
Held, that in order that mandam"8 may issue to compel
the authorities to di) somthing, it must be shown that the
statute im(>OICS a legal duty and the aggrieved p«rty had a
legal right und"}' the statute to enforce its performanc¢
In the instant case it has not been sh~wn th~t there was
any right in the appellant which can l>e enforced by a writ of
mandomua.
CrvIL APrEJ,LA.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 403 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from th11 judgment
and order dated July 19, 1961
of the Patnr.
High Court in Mi8c.
Judicia.I C\se No . .Wi of 1961.
Bcwdeva PrlWJ!l and Naumt Lal,, for the
Appellant.
N. 0. Ohatterjee, D. P. Singh, R. K; Garg,
8 .. C. Agarwala and M. K. Ramamurlhy, for the
respondents.
2 S.C.R;
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
145
1961. December 15. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave
against the judgment an<f order of the High Court
of Patna dismis8ing the appellant's petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution. The respondents are
t.he Governing Body of the Nalanda College, its
President Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, its Secretary
Mr. K. B. P. N. Singh and Mr. Ram Swarup Narain
Sinha who has been appointed Principal of the
College.
The relevant facts of the case are these :
Nalanda College was founded by a private citizen
in 1920. It became a degree college in 1945 and
was affiliated to the Bihar University in 1951. In
March 1953, Mr. D.P. Srivastava who was a Government servant was appointed its Principal but the
Government withdrt;'\\'. him on February 4, 1958. It
is :j,lleged that At an extraordinary ilneeting of the
Governing Body of the College held on February 23,
J 958 the appellant was appointed its Principal and
the University were informed of this appointment
as required by the University Statutes and he
actually took charge of his office on July 11, 1958.
At a meeting on July 27, 1958 the appointment
made on February 23, 1958 was confirmed. On
November 9, 1959, there was a change in the constitution of the Governing Body and respondent
~o. 2 became its Chairman. The Governing Body
reconsidered the proceedings of February 23, 1958
and at a meeting on January 31, 1960, the Governing Body resolved to appoint a new Principal. In
the meanwhile it !Iecided that the appellant should
continue to act till a new appointment was·made. At
this meeting the appellant, as an ex-officio member,
was present. He alleges that he complained about
this appointment to the Vice-Chancellor of the
Bihar University and he was, by a letter, advised
by the Vice-Chancellor to watch and see what
1961
Dr. Rai Shivendra
Bahadur
v.
The Governing Body
of the Nalantia
Collete
EflpurJ.
1Hl
Dr. Ra• Shivtf'Wa
B•ltad!lr
v.
Tb,, 0flJtr'llin1 Botl.J
of the l( alada
Colltgt
Kapw J.
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP
happens. On May 14, 1960 the Governing Body
resolved to advertise the post. At this meeting
also the appellant was present and on September 26,
1960

## Text

1961
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS fl962] SUt>P.
DR. RAI SHIVENDRA BAHADUR
f}.
THE GOVER.NfNG BODY OF THE
.,
NALANDA COLLEGE
(B.P. ScNHA, C. J .. J. L. KAPUR, M. HmAYA.TULLAK, .
J.C. SHAH and.J. R. MuDHOLK.\R, JJ.;
•
Wrif of Ma11da011J.1-.\'alarula College ajJlliaUd lo BiMr
Uni•:eraity-Appoinlmenl of Principal-Legal r;ght, if anv toil4regard to que.trion of appointmu•t-lf and when writ can w ..
Unit'<r.<it.~ of Bihar Ael 1951 (Bih1r 27 of 1951), Univeraily
Statute XV 1-Con•litution of India, Art, 226.
The appellant"was appointed as the Principal ofNalanda
College affiliated to the Bihar L'nivenity in 1958. As requir.
ed by the University Statute XVI this fact was intimated to
the University, bHt the appointment w•s not approved by the
Syndicate as required by Art. 5, of the Untveristy Statute,
In 1960 a new governing body resolved to appoint a new prinr.ipal and decided that in the mr.antime the appellant was to
continue to act till the new appointment was made. The
governing body interviewed candidates including the appellant
and by a resolution authorised iu Chairman to make a final
selection. The validity of the selection of the Principal was
challenged by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution by asking a w.itc of mandamua to issue.
Held, that in order that mandam"8 may issue to compel
the authorities to di) somthing, it must be shown that the
statute im(>OICS a legal duty and the aggrieved p«rty had a
legal right und"}' the statute to enforce its performanc¢
In the instant case it has not been sh~wn th~t there was
any right in the appellant which can l>e enforced by a writ of
mandomua.
CrvIL APrEJ,LA.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 403 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from th11 judgment
and order dated July 19, 1961
of the Patnr.
High Court in Mi8c.
Judicia.I C\se No . .Wi of 1961.
Bcwdeva PrlWJ!l and Naumt Lal,, for the
Appellant.
N. 0. Ohatterjee, D. P. Singh, R. K; Garg,
8 .. C. Agarwala and M. K. Ramamurlhy, for the
respondents.
2 S.C.R;
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
145
1961. December 15. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave
against the judgment an<f order of the High Court
of Patna dismis8ing the appellant's petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution. The respondents are
t.he Governing Body of the Nalanda College, its
President Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, its Secretary
Mr. K. B. P. N. Singh and Mr. Ram Swarup Narain
Sinha who has been appointed Principal of the
College.
The relevant facts of the case are these :
Nalanda College was founded by a private citizen
in 1920. It became a degree college in 1945 and
was affiliated to the Bihar University in 1951. In
March 1953, Mr. D.P. Srivastava who was a Government servant was appointed its Principal but the
Government withdrt;'\\'. him on February 4, 1958. It
is :j,lleged that At an extraordinary ilneeting of the
Governing Body of the College held on February 23,
J 958 the appellant was appointed its Principal and
the University were informed of this appointment
as required by the University Statutes and he
actually took charge of his office on July 11, 1958.
At a meeting on July 27, 1958 the appointment
made on February 23, 1958 was confirmed. On
November 9, 1959, there was a change in the constitution of the Governing Body and respondent
~o. 2 became its Chairman. The Governing Body
reconsidered the proceedings of February 23, 1958
and at a meeting on January 31, 1960, the Governing Body resolved to appoint a new Principal. In
the meanwhile it !Iecided that the appellant should
continue to act till a new appointment was·made. At
this meeting the appellant, as an ex-officio member,
was present. He alleges that he complained about
this appointment to the Vice-Chancellor of the
Bihar University and he was, by a letter, advised
by the Vice-Chancellor to watch and see what
1961
Dr. Rai Shivendra
Bahadur
v.
The Governing Body
of the Nalantia
Collete
EflpurJ.
1Hl
Dr. Ra• Shivtf'Wa
B•ltad!lr
v.
Tb,, 0flJtr'llin1 Botl.J
of the l( alada
Colltgt
Kapw J.
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP
happens. On May 14, 1960 the Governing Body
resolved to advertise the post. At this meeting
also the appellant was present and on September 26,
1960 the Governing Body resolved to readvertise
the post. Some candidates including the appellant
were interviewed by the Governing Body and on
December 18, 1960 it passed a resolution authorising the Chairman to make a selection from amongst
the candidates who had been interviewed, and who
included the appellant. In accordance with this
resolution the Presid!'nt, respondent-No. 2, apf>ointed respondent No. 4 aa the Principal of the College.
He was at that time a. Principal of another College
in Bihar. On April 18, 1961 the appellant was
asked to hand over charge to the new ·appointee by
May 6, 1961. The petitioner thereupon filed a
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the appointment of respondent
No. 4 as Pr.incipal on the ground that the appellant's
appointment was never
terminated
and
if
there was any resolution by which resolution
of February 23, 1958 was rescinded or cancel·
led, it was illegal as it was not included in
the agenda. to be tra.nsa.cted and was void because
of certain provisions in the University Statute framed under the University of Bihar Act, 1951 (Act 27
of 1951 ), which ha.cl the force of law; that the
appointment of the New Principal WM invalid
because the appointment had to be ma.de by the
Governing Body of the College at its meeting and
the power could not be delegated to the President
or the Secretary; that the appointment was not
approved by the University and the appellant was
a better candidate than respondent No. 4 and he
was entitled to promotion under Art. 4(1 )(b) of
Statute XVI.
These allegations were denied by the respondents. They pleaded that the resolution of February 23, 1958 was not valid because it did not
consider the case of other teachers for promotion;
\
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
147
that the appointment JJf the appellant was ne..-er
approved by the Syndicate as required by Art. 5 of
Statute XVI; that the appellant having himself
applied for the post of Principal after the resolutions were passed by the new Governing Body and
having offered himself for interview before the
Governing Body could not challenge tbe legality
of the appointment as he could not approbate and
reprobate.
The High Court held that the appellant's
appointment was not valid as the Syndicate had
not given its approval and the petitioner had been
allowed to join the post of Principal without such
approval; that the decision of the Governing Body
to advertise for the post of Principal was neither a
case of punishment nor termination of service nor
was ·it a demotion of the appellant, therefore it
did not fall under Arts. 7, 8 and 9 of the Statutes.
It also held that there was no protest from the
appellant against the passing of the new resolution
and as he submitted himself for selection, he could
not now complain if some body else was selected.
It was held therefore that the appellant could not
challenge the new appointment because (l) his own
appointment was not ..-alid and (2) the appointment
of respondent No. 4 was valid as it was approved
by the University.
A great deal of controversy was raised before
us as to whether the Statutes framed by the University under s. 20 of University of Bihar Act have
or have not the force of law and whether a writ
under Art. 226 of the Constitution can issue against
the Governing Body of the College i.e., whether
the appellant has a legal right to the performance
of a legal duty by the respondents. In order that
mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to
do something it must be shown that the Statutes
impose a legal duty and the appellant has .a
legal
right under
bhe
Statutes
to enforce
1961
Dr. R.i Shiv~ndra
Bahcdur
v:
The Governint Bei_,~
• f the .N alan•c
Collitt
Ka1nJr J.
111111
Dr. Rai SAiwndra
B""4dur
••
r ~ Gowrning Body
of U.. Naknd4
c.u.,,
K•pvr J.
148 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
its
performance.
It
is,
however,
wholly
unneoessary to go into or decide this question or
to decide whether the Statutes impose on the
Governing Body of the College a duty which can
be enforced by a writ of mandamus because a.ssum·
ing that the contention of the appellant is right
that the College is a public body and it has to perform a public duty in the appointment of a Principal, it has not been shown that there is any right in
the appellant which can be enforced by mandamua.
According to the Statutes all appointments of
teachers and staff have to be made by the Governing Body and no JX rson can be appointed, removed or demoted except in accordance with Rules but
the appellant has not shown that he has any right
entitling him to get an order for appointment or
reinstatement. Our attention has not been drawn to
any Article in the Statutes by which the appellant
has a right to be appointed or reinstated and if he
has not thatright he cannot come to Court and ask
for a writ to issue. It is therefore not nece11S&ry to
go into any other question.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed,
but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear
their own costs.
Appeal di8missed.