1
Court No.22
Writ Petition No.4911 (SS) of 2010
Committee of Management ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ... Opp. Parties
-------------
Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 17.6.2010, inter alia, on the ground that the D.I.O.S. was not
authorised to look into the matter and neither any approval or
disapproval was required on the part of the D.I.O.S. It is also submitted
that the appeal under Section 16-G(3)(c) of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act (for short ‘the Act’) is not maintainable on account of the
fact that the subject matter of the case is not cognizable by the
educational authorities as the institution in question is a minority
institution and, therefore, in any case remedy will not lie before the
educational authorities as neither any approval or disapproval is
required.
Counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has
submitted that the petitioner could have approached the Civil Court in
stead of approaching the D.I.O.S. He has further submitted that
opposite party no.3 has earlier approached this Court by way of Writ
Petition No.2007 (SS) of 2000 and the said writ petition was disposed of
finally with the direction that the petitioner may approach the D.I.O.S.
or any other competent authority or prefer a regular Suit in the court of
competent jurisdiction. Opposite party no.3 decided to approach the
D.I.O.S. and thereafter the D.I.O.S. adjudicated the matter and found
that the conduct of opposite party no.3 as alleged by the management
is out come of malice between the parties. He has also relied upon the
statements of various citizens of excellence, who were taught by
opposite party no.3 and after appreciating the entire factual controversy
came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal passed against the
opposite party no.3 was not valid.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record.
The controversy in question arises from the fact that as to
whether the committee of management can challenge the aforesaid
order by way of appeal as provided under Section 16-G(3)(C) of the Act
2
or it can file a Civil Suit. This Court also opined in the earlier round of
litigation that it is open for the parties to file a Civil Suit or approach the
D.I.O.S. Opposite party no.3 approached the D.I.O.S. and thereafter the
impugned order has been passed. If the petitioner is aggrieved in its
wisdom, it may file an appeal although the contention of counsel for the
petitioner that appeal is not maintainable on account of the fact that the
institution is question is a minority institution and, therefore, approval
or disapproval is not required at all nor as a consequence of that order
the appeal would be maintainable. Once it is accepted by the petitioner
that the appeal is not maintainable, the only remedy as available to the
petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for proper redressal of its
grievance. The law in this regard is settled by the apex Court in the case
of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli and
others vs. Lakshmi Narain and others, 1976 (2) SCC 58. The
petitioner had not challenged the earlier order passed by this Court in
the earlier round of litigation and that order has attained finality and it
will open for the parties to approach the Civil Court as well as to the
D.I.O.S. Hence, no interference is required by this Court.
The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
21.7.2010
Rao/-