IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT‘OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. s Nogzoi Of 201o gangm Bamh PETITIONER : N.Ha1‘1umant‘ Rao, son of late ' N.K.Shastri, aged about ‘34 years, R/o. W—l—A, Jeevan Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS‘ :1) Pragati COllége, through its Director ‘ Rajiv Vora, Pragati College a (Chhattisgarh Education Society), Central Avenue, V Choubey Colony, Raipur LChhattiSgarm :2) Secretary Chhattisgarh Educational Society, C/o. Amrit Sandesh Press, Amrit Sandesh Complex, G.E.Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: rHon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (3.) No.2077 of 2010 Petitioner w ‘ N. Hanumant Rao verSUS Pragati College and others Respondents Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri J.K.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. rit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a: x ; .. ORAL ORDER (Passed __11.__ on 25‘ June, 2010) Heard on i.A.No.1 for amendment in the writ petition. On due consideration. i.A.No.1 is_allowed._‘_ Ihe . amendment. be incorporated during the course of the day. 2. Heard on admission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer by respondent No.1/college run by respondent No.2/society, which is a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh VWSigciety Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. ~ 1’” i, RM . . Appa’rentiy, the petitioner is notkan o Ice under the State Government and respondents No.2 and 1 are private society and college, respectively. 4. To an educational institution run by a private' society, the i/ A \@ovisions of the' Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya Sikshan Sanstha 6g 2 (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 are applicable. In exercise of powers under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 read with proviso to sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of Section 6 of the above—said Adhiniyam, 1978, the State Government has framed the Chhattisga‘rh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchari) Appeal Rules, 1978. 5. In the opinion of this Court, there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner for raising his grievance for non—payment of salary or against'his‘oral'termination‘as'stated in‘th‘e'vvrit'petition. 6. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable at the present stage on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, however, it is directed that if the petitioner raises his grievance before the competent authority, it shall be looked into in accordance with law. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge v Jr i ‘ 3 Mail 1, Wat“ [)Eh‘ '(‘lriiH {’?1"§@‘} s "‘;":}‘:3" ‘