C.W.P.No.11794 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11794 of 2006 Date of Decision : 24.03.2008 Smt.Rameshwari Devi .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri Arun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri Jitender Chahal, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 22.7.2002, Annexure P-3, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents. Earlier, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the Civil Writ Petition No.5561 of 2005 which was withdrawn on 5.4.2005 when the following order was passed; “After arguing the case for some time, counsel prays that he be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue her remedy before the authorities. Allowed to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn.” C.W.P.No.11794 of 2006 2 Thereafter, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court again on 21.2.2006 by filing the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that she has submitted a legal notice dated 7.5.2005 and reply thereto has been given on 7.8.2005, therefore, the petitioner has availed her remedy as sought in the order dated 5.4.2005. The petitioner was a teacher with respondent No.4-School which is receiving grant in-aid from the State of Haryana. Therefore, the services of the petitioner are governed by The Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 3 (3) of the Act provides that if order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank has been passed without complying with the provisions of Sub Section 1 of Section 3, an appeal is maintainable before the District Education Officer and under Section 4 before the Director. Admittedly, the petitioner has not invoked the remedy available to her under the statute. The present writ petition has been filed after more than 3 years of the order having been passed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy under the statute. The present writ petition is, thus, dismissed for the aforesaid reasons. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 24-03-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE