Vice-Chancellor must examine governing body’s non-compliance and may invoke Clause 28 upon finding violations.

The petitioner claimed to be the donor member of S.K.M.V. College, Fatuha.

The University, through Memo No. INS/PPU/243/24 dated 30 November 2024, had declared him to be a donor member.

Subsequently, by letter No. INS/PPU/400/25 dated 31 July 2025, issued in light of the order in C.W.J.C. No. 735 of 2024 dated 20 March 2024, the University nominated the petitioner as the donor member after considering the relevant records.

Despite these communications, the petitioner was not invited to four consecutive meetings of the Governing Body, while respondent no. 5 was treated and invited as the donor member.

The Registrar sought an explanation from the Secretary-in-Charge/Principal of the college, but the dispute continued.

The college also questioned the petitioner’s eligibility to hold the nomination as donor member by letter dated 27 June 2025.

The petitioner therefore sought dissolution of the Governing Body under Clause 28 of Statute 32 for non-compliance with the University’s directions.

Whether the Governing Body acted contrary to the University’s directions by failing to recognise and invite the petitioner as the donor member of the college while treating respondent no. 5 as the donor member?

Whether the University was required to dissolve the Governing Body under Clause 28 of Statute 32 for the alleged non-compliance?

Whether the Vice-Chancellor should examine the conduct of the Governing Body and take appropriate action, including action under Clause 28 of Statute 32 if violations were established?

The Court applied the University’s governing framework, particularly Clause 28 of Statute 32, which permits action against the Governing Body where its conduct is inconsistent with the prescribed rules or the University’s mandate.

The Court also relied on the University’s administrative determinations declaring and nominating the petitioner as donor member, including Memo No. INS/PPU/243/24 dated 30 November 2024 and letter No. INS/PPU/400/25 dated 31 July 2025.

The order in C.W.J.C. No. 735 of 2024 dated 20 March 2024 formed the basis for the University’s subsequent consideration and nomination of the petitioner.

The Court noted that the University had already considered the relevant records and had recognised and nominated the petitioner as donor member.

The continued exclusion of the petitioner from Governing Body meetings, coupled with the treatment of respondent no. 5 as donor member, prima facie indicated non-compliance with the University’s determination.

The Court also took note that the college had questioned the petitioner’s eligibility despite the University’s decision, but did not itself finally determine the competing eligibility claims.

Instead, it directed the Vice-Chancellor to examine the matter and determine whether the conduct of the Governing Body violated the applicable rules or the University’s mandate.

Only if such violation was found was the Vice-Chancellor authorised to proceed under Clause 28 of Statute 32.

It directed the Vice-Chancellor of Patliputra University to examine the dispute and take an appropriate decision.

If the conduct of any Governing Body member was found to be contrary to the prescribed rules or in violation of the University’s mandate, the Vice-Chancellor was granted liberty to proceed under Clause 28 of Statute 32.

The exercise was directed to be completed preferably within eight weeks from receipt or production of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.