IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23465 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 10, 2011. S.G.G.S. Khalsa College, Mahalpur .....Petitioner versus Educational Tribunal, Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-College is aggrieved by the order dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Educational Tribunal, Punjab, whereby the claim of respondent No.2 for payment of wages till 14th December, 2009, namely, the period for which he worked as Clerk with the petitioner-College, has been accepted but his further prayer for continuity in service has been turned down on the ground that he was over-age at the time of his appointment and there is no power to relax the said eligibility condition. While accepting the claim of 2nd respondent for payment of salary for the period he worked as Clerk, the Tribunal has held as follows:- “....As we have held above that office of DPI ( C ) is equally responsible with college authorities in granting the approval and confirmation to the petitioner, therefore, C.W.P.No .23465 of 2010 2 petitioner would be entitled to the wages till 14.12.2009. The difference of salary shall be paid to the petitioner at the first instance by college authorities from its own resources and thereafter, it shall submit the claim to the office of D.P.I. (C) who will reimburse the amount to college authorities as we have held above that the petitioner was not serving gratuitously. Rather he has been restrained from performing his duties by college authorities and under the advice of office of D.P.I. (C). Both should share the blame.....” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it would, thus, be seen that the petitioner-management has been directed to pay the arrears of salary at the first instance from its own resources and thereafter put its claim to the D.P.I. (C) who in turn is required to re-imburse the same to the petitioner-college. Suffice it to say that respondent No.2 despite being over-age was appointed as Clerk by the petitioner-management only. In the light of the above, the petitioner-management appears to have neither any `locus- standi' nor `cause of action' to impugn the order passed by the Educational Tribunal. Dismissed. January 10, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE