K. N. Seth, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in this case, namely, C. M. P. Degree College, Allahabad, Kayastha Pathshala and the Managing Committee of C. M. P. Degree College have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings in Suit No. 452 of 1974 filed by respondent no. 1 in the court of the Munsif West, Allahabad. A further prayer has been made of a writ of mandamus commanding the Mansuf West, Allahabad, either to return the plaint to respondent no. 1 or to dismiss the same as not maintainable. THE relevant facts of the case appear to be that applications were invited for appointment to the post of a permanent lecturer in Political Science in C. M. P. Degree College which is affiliated to the University of Allahabad. THE Selection Committee recommended the name of the respondent no. 1 for appointment to that post. Subsequently, the Committee of Management decided to re-advertise the post and a fresh selection committee was constituted. THE Selection Committee this time recommended the name of Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Before the Committee of Management could meet and approve the name recommended by the Selection Committee, respondent no. 1 filed Suit No. 452, of 1974 against Kayastha Pathshala Trust, Managing Com mittee of C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad, and the University of Allahabad, in the court of the Munsif West, Allahabad, Claiming the following relief as: "(a) That the defendant no. 1 and 2 be restrained from making any fresh permanent appointment to the post of lecturer in Politics in C. M. P. Degree College, Allahabad, until and unless the previous Selection Committee meets and reconsiders its previous recommendation dated 19.8.1978 made in favour of the plaintiff. (b) That the defendant nos. 1 and 2 be directed to convene the meeting of the previous Selection Committee to which previous recommendation dated 19.8.1972 has been referred back by the Managing Committee for reconsideration." No relief was claimed against the University of Allahabad although it was impleaded as a defendant to the suit. THE stand taken by the petitioners is that the present suit instituted by respondent no. 1 was not maintainable. Learned counsel failed to point out any provision in the U. P. State Universities Act or the Statutes or ordinances of the University of Allahabad either pressly or impliedly barring a suit of its nature instituted by respondent No. 1. THE main question involved in the suit was whether the post could not be re-adverlised and fresh selection could be made by the Committee of Management of the C. M. P. Degree College. Bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot lightly be inferred. Section 69 of the U.P State Universities Act cannot possibly be pressed into service by the petitioners as that provisions is obviously not attracted to an affiliated college. Section 69 of the U. P. State Universities Act reads as follows:- "69. Bar of Suit; No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government or the Director of Education (Higher Education) or the Deputy Director (as defined in section 60-A) or the Authorised Controller or the University or any officer, authority or body thereof in respect of anything done or purported or intended to be done in pursua nce of the Act or the rules or the Statutes or the Ordinance made thereunder." Section 9 of the said Act defines the officers of the University. THE Com mittee of Management of an affiliated college does not fall under the category. Section 19 which defines authorities of the University also does not include either the Committee of Management of an affiliaged college or the Selection Committee for appointment of teachers of the affiliated College. So the Committee of Management of C. M. P. Degree College is neither an officer nor an authorithy nor a body of the University. THE decision taken by the Committee of Management to re-adverties the post and make a fresh appointment is not immune from challenge in the civil court because of the bar created by section 69 of the Act. Reference in this context was made to section 68-A which deals with the powers of Vice-Chancellor to enforece his order against management. Sub-section (4) of section 68-A of the Act provides that no suit shall lie against any management or teacher in respect of any matter for which a relief can be granted by the Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). THE provisions of sub-scotions (1) and (2) of section 68-A of the Act do not cover the dispute raised in the suit. That dispute falls on entirely outside the purview of the provisions contained in Section 68-A. e onsequently no relief can bo granted by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his power under sub-section (4) of section 68-A of the Act. This provision also, therefore, does not bar the suit instituted by respondent no. 1. In our opinion the learned Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by respondent no. 1. This petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.;