Civil Appeal No 2468 of 1987 From the Judgment and order dated 1351987 of the Allahabad High Court in WP No 1822 of 1987
359 RK Jain and RP Gupta for the Appellant
SN Kacker Dileep Tandon RB Mehrotra PN Bhatta and RA Gupta for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
Both the parties have made elaborate submissions at the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition filed by the appellant Dr Smt
Kuntesh Gupta
The special leave is granted and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit
The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under section 68 of the UP State Universities Act 1973
The appellant Dr Smt
Kuntesh Gupta was appointed the Principal of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sitapur UP on June 4 1984 and was confirmed in the said post on May 4 1985
In view of existence of two unrecognised rival Committees of Management the State Government in exercise of its power under section 58 of the UP State Universities Act appointed one of the Additional District Magistrates of the District the Authorised Controller of the Institution
The Authorised Controller was entitled to exercise all the powers of the Committee of Management
It appears that the appellant as the Principal of the Institution and the Authorised Controller could not see eye to eye with each other and there were disputes and differences between them in regard to the management of the Institution
The differences between them reached to such a degree that the Authorised Controller by his order dated January 27 1986 suspended the appellant
The order of suspension was however stayed by the Vice Chancellor of the University on January 29 1986
After hearing the appellant and the Authorised Controller the Vice Chancellor maintained the stay order
Thereafter the Authorised Controller held an ex parte enquiry and by his order dated April 21 1986 dismissed the appellant from service in exercise of the powers of the Managing Committee vested in him by Statute 1706 of the Statutes of the University
Statute 1706 provides for the giving of an opportunity of being heard to the teacher concerned and prescribes a procedure for enquiry which according to the appellant was not followed by the Authorised Controller
A copy of 360 the said order of dismissal was sent to the Director of Education and to the Vice Chancellor for approval as required under Statute 17063
The Vice Chancellor after hearing the parties by her order dated January 24 1987 disapproved the order of dismissal of the appellant on the ground that the charges against the appellant did not warrant her dismissal from service and directed that the appellant should be allowed to function as Principal of the College forthwith
After the said order was passed by the Vice Chancellor reinstating the appellant and granting liberty to the Authorised Controller to impose lesser punishment on the appellant if deemed necessary the Authorised Controller without passing any lesser punishment by his order dated January 27 1987 allowed the appellant to function as the Principal but put various restraints and constraints on her powers and duties as Principal and directed her to vacate the quarters in which she was residing
Feeling aggrieved the appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the imposition of such restraints and constraints on her powers and duties as the Principal of the College
The High Court after considering the fact and circumstances of the case by its judgment dated March 10 1987 quashed the said order dated January 27 1987 of the Authorised Controller and directed him to allow the appellant to function as the full fledged Principal of the Institution in accordance with law
The High Court further granted liberty to the Authorised Controller to go ahead with the imposition of minor penalty on the appellant in accordance with law and as provided in the said order of the Vice Chancellor
It appears that while the matter was pending before the High Court at the instance of the appellant the Vice Chancellor passed an order dated March 7 1987 that is to say three days before the date of the judgment of the High Court reviewing her earlier order disapproving the dismissal of the appellant from service
By the order dated March 7 1987 passed on review the Vice Chancellor approved the order of the Authorised Controller dismissing the appellant from service on the basis of two reports of the Joint Director of Higher Education UP one dated August 1 1986 and the other dated July 18 1986 alleging great financial irregularities committed by the appellant
Although the said order dated March 7 1987 was passed by the Vice Chancellor on review three days before the delivery of the judgment by the High Court no steps were taken by the Authorised Controller who was a party in the writ petition to bring to the notice of the High Court the said order of the Vice Chancellor dated March 7 1987 361 It is alleged by the appellant that the said order was passed by the Vice Chancellor in collusion with the Authorised Controller with a view to rendering the writ petition of the appellant and also the judgment of the High Court infructuous
While we reject the allegation of the appellant that the said order was passed by the Vice Chancellor in collusion with the Authorised Controller for there is no material whatsoever in support of that allegation we are of the view that the Authorised Controller should have brought to the notice of the High Court the order of the Vice Chancellor passed on review
Be that as it may the appellant again filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the said order dated March 7 1987 of the Vice Chancellor passed on review
The High Court however took the view that the impugned order could be challenged on a reference to the Chancellor of University under section 68 of the UP State Universities Act 1973 and accordingly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy
Hence this appeal
It has been strenuously urged by Mr Jain learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the Vice chancellor had no power of review under the Statutes of the University or under the UP State Universities Act 1973 and as such the Vice Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in entertaining an application for review filed by the Authorised Controller
On the other hand it is submitted by Mr Kacker learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vice Chancellor that as the two reports dated August 1 1986 and July 18 1986 of the Joint Director of Higher Education UP alleging certain grave financial irregularities were not before the Vice Chancellor the Vice Chancellor was entitled to review her order and after considering the said reports reviewed her order and approved the order of dismissal of the appellant from service
Further it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the High Court was justified in not entertaining the writ petition of the appellant as there was an alternative remedy under section 68 of the UP State Universities Act and the impugned order could be challenged before the Chancellor of the University on a reference of the question to the Chancellor under the provision of section 68
It is now well established that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction
The Vice Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of 362 dismissal of the Principal acts as a quasi judicial authority
It is not disputed that the provisions of the UP State Universities Act 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice Chancellor
In the circumstances it must be held that the Vice Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing her order dated January 24 1987 by her order dated March 7 1987
The R said order of the Vice Chancellor dated March 7 1987 was a nullity
The next question that falls for our consideration is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy
It is true that there was an alternative remedy for challenging the impugned order by referring the question to the Chancellor under section 68 of the UP State Universities Act
It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition
When an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy
In the instant case the Vice Chancellor had no power of review and the exercise of such a power by her was absolutely without jurisdiction
Indeed the order passed by the Vice Chancellor on review was a nullity such an order could surely be challenged before the High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and in our opinion the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to the appellant under section 68 of the UP State Universities Act
As the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor is a nullity it would be a useless formality to send the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition on merits
We would accordingly quash the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor dated March 7 1987 and direct the reinstatement of the appellant forthwith to the post of Principal of the Institution
The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed
There will however be no order as to costs
We however make it clear that the respondents will be at liberty to initiate a departmental proceeding against the appellant if they so think fit and proper on the basis of the allegations as made in the said reports of the Joint Director of Higher Education UP HLC Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant was the principal of an institution the management of which had been entrusted to an Authorised Controller under section 58 of the UP State Universities Act 1973
Following upon certain disputes and differences with regard to the management of the institution the appellant was suspended by the Controller but the order of suspension was stayed by the Vice Chancellor
The Controller after holding an ex parte inquiry dismissed the appellant from service in exercise of the power vested in him by the University Statute 1706 which provided the giving of an opportunity of being heard to the teacher concerned and prescribed a procedure for inquiry
The Vice Chancellor on the ground that the charges against the appellant did not warrant her dismissal disapproved the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the appellant granting liberty to the Controller to impose a lesser punishment on her
The Controller passed an order allowing the appellant to function as the Principal but at the same time imposing various restraints and constraints on her powers and duties which was challenged by her in a petition filed under article 226
The High Court quashed the said order with liberty to the Controller to impose a minor penalty on the appellant in accordance with the order of the Vice Chancellor
Three days before the High Court delivered its judgment the Vice Chancellor had reviewed her earlier order at the instance of H 358 the appellant and on the basis of two reports of the Joint Director of Higher Education alleging that the appellant had committed grave financial irregularities had approved the order of dismissal passed earlier by the Controller but the Controller who was a party to the writ petition did not bring it to the notice of the High Court
The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the Vice Chancellor passed in review by a petition under article 226 which was dismissed by the High Court on the around of existence of an alternative remedy under section 68 of the UP State lUniversities Act
Allowing the appeal  HELD It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition
When an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy
362C D In the instant case the Vice Chancellor had no power of review and the exercise of such a power by her was absolutely without jurisdiction
Indeed the order passed by the Vice Chancellor on review was a nullity such an order could surely be challenged before the High Court by a petition under article 226 and in our opinion the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to the appellant under section 68 of the UP State Universities Act
362D E 2
It is now well established that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction
The Vice Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal acts as a quasi judicial authority
It is not disputed that the provisions of the UP State Universities Act 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice Chancellor
In the circumstances it must be held that the Vice Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing her order dated January 24 1987 by her order dated March 7 1987
361H 362A B