Mandamus under Article 226 requires a specific enforceable legal right, and no writ lay without one.

Mandamus under Article 226 lies only where the applicant establishes a specific legal right correlated to a legal duty enforceable against the respondent. The Court held that, even assuming the College Governing Body performed a public duty in making appointments, the appellant could not obtain writ relief because no provision in the University Statutes conferred a right to appointment or reinstatement as Principal. As no enforceable legal right was shown, the broader questions whether the Statutes had the force of law or whether mandamus could otherwise lie against the Governing Body did not require decision. The challenge to the appointment therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued under Article 226 to compel the College Governing Body to recognise the appellant's claim to appointment or reinstatement as Principal.

Analysis: The Court held that even assuming the College was a public body performing a public duty in making appointments, mandamus could issue only if the appellant showed a corresponding legal right enforceable against the respondents. The appellant could not point to any provision in the University Statutes conferring a right to appointment or reinstatement. Since no such enforceable right was established, it was unnecessary to decide the broader question whether the Statutes had the force of law or whether the writ could lie against the Governing Body.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to mandamus, and the challenge to the appointment failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because no enforceable legal right in favour of the appellant was shown to support the claimed writ relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandamus under Article 226 lies only where the applicant demonstrates a specific legal right correlated to a legal duty enforceable against the respondent.

---