C.W.P. No. 1207 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1207 of 2007 Date of decision: 22.12.2009 CRZ Senior Secondary School, Sonepat and another ....Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Markanday, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 1207 of 2007 titled CRZ Senior Secondary School, Sonepat and another Vs. The State of Haryana and others, and Civil Writ Petition No. 7978 of 2008 titled Rajinder Kumar Saroha Vs. State of Haryana and others For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 1207 of 2007. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by CRZ Senior Secondary School, Sonepat, through its C.W.P. No. 1207 of 2007 -2- acting Principal Sh. Azad Singh and by Sh. Azad Singh S/o Sh. Kundan Ram, acting Principal in his individual capacity, to challenge the order Annexure P-13 passed by the appellate authority, setting aside the order of dismissal of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4, Rajinder Kumar Saroha, the petitioner in CWP No.7978 of 2008, was working as Principal of the petitioner- School in the year 1998-99, in pursuance to his appointment by respondent No.5 i.e. Tikka Ram Education Society (Regd.), Sonepat. Respondent No.4 was suspended on 22.6.2000 on the charge of misappropriation, and FIR No. 270 dated 1.6.2000, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Sonepat City. Respondent No.4 invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of his suspension order, and for reinstatement in service. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.5.2003, by issuing following directions: - “i) The respondent-Management shall take necessary steps to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and to complete the same within a reasonable time; ii) If the departmental proceedings against the petitioner are not possible for want of record, the Management would be competent to obtain photocopies of the relevant record and on the basis of the photocopies, the departmental proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner (learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the bar that the petitioner would not object to the departmental proceedings being C.W.P. No. 1207 of 2007 -3- taken against him on the basis of the photocopies); iii) That departmental proceedings including the inquiry shall be completed expeditiously preferably within one year. However, this is subject to the condition that the petitioner would cooperate in the departmental proceedings; iv) After initiating the departmental proceedings, if a regular inquiry is required to be held, we hope that some independent person would be appointed as the Inquiry Officer, to hold the inquiry.” In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the appointing authority i.e. respondent No.5 issued chargesheet to respondent No.4 on 16.12.2003, and got allegations in chargesheet inquired by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer held respondent No.4 to be guilty of the charges. Respondent No.5 i.e. the appointing authority of respondent No.4, terminated the services of respondent No.4 by order of dismissal. Before terminating the services of respondent No.4, he was issued show cause notice, which was challenged by respondent No.4 in the civil Court, but he failed to get the interim injunction against the Managing Committee to proceed with the matter. Respondent No.4 thereafter filed statutory appeal under Rule 111 of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 against his dismissal within the stipulated period of 30 days. The District Education Officer upheld the decision of the Managing Committee dismissing respondent No.4 from service. Respondent No.4, thereafter filed appeal under Rule 111(c) of C.W.P. No. 1207 of 2007 -4- the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 before the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana. The Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of District Education Officer, Sonepat, dated 29.12.2004 and the order of management dated 31.8.2004, vide which the services of respondent No.4 were ordered to be dismissed. However, the Managing Committee was allowed to hold inquiry on merits, in accordance with law. Thereafter, without any application, either by respondent No.4 or by the management, reviewed the order passed in appeal and part of order, vide which the impugned orders were set aside, was deleted, with liberty to the management to hold fresh inquiry. The order of review has been challenged by respondent No.4 by filing CWP No. 7978 of 2008, on the ground of it being without jurisdiction, as there is no provision of review in the Education Rules, and in absence thereof, the Director had no jurisdiction to review the order passed. It is also contended, that it was not open to the successor- in-office to reopen the matter, which stood closed, after conveying the order to the respective parties. Mr. D.V. Sharma, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition by the petitioner by contending that respondent No.4 was employed by respondent No.5, and the petitioners were not party before the appellate authority nor they could be, as they had no locus standi to maintain the appeal or contest it. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel for C.W.P. No. 1207 of 2007 -5- respondent No.4, that petitioner No.2 has absolutely no locus standi as acting Principal, to challenge an order passed by the appellate authority on appeal filed by respondent No.4. The objection against petitioner No.1 is that it has no independent legal entity, as it is a school set up by the Society, which is run by the Managing Committee i.e. Tikka Ram Education Society (Regd.), Sonepat. The contention of the learned senior counsel is, that once respondent No.5 had not chosen to challenge the order, petitioners herein cannot maintain this writ petition, for want of locus standi. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that due to the dispute in the Managing Committee, an Administrator was appointed, whose term also expired, and there was no Administrator or Committee to run respondent No.5, it was in this situation that it is open to the petitioners, to maintain this writ petition. It is further contended, that respondent No.4 had started interfering in functioning of the School in pursuance to the order passed by the appellate authority, therefore, necessity arose to file this writ. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.4. Once, it is not in dispute that Tikka Ram Education Society (Regd.) Sonepat, was the appointing and punishing authority of respondent No.4. Petitioner No.1, which has no legal entity, cannot maintain a writ petition, as the writ petition can be maintained either by a person or legal person/legal entity. Once, petitioner No.1 does not fall in either of the definition of person or legal entity, it cannot maintain any legal proceedings in its C.W.P. No. 1207 of 2007 -6- behalf, merely because respondent No.5 did not have an Administrator at particular time. Petitioner No.2 or any other person interested could take steps to seek appropriate direction to revive the Managing Committee/or atleast the Committee appointed thereafter could continue with petition by substitution. Petitioner No.2 in his capacity as acting Principal also does not have any locus standi to maintain this petition, specially when his status of acting Principal ended in passing of impugned order, when the order of dismissal of respondent No.4 was set aside. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed, by holding that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. The writ petition No. 7978 of 2008 is allowed as the order of review, impugned by respondent No.4 in CWP No.7978 of 2008 (Annexure P-14) is without jurisdiction. It is well settled law that review is a statutory remedy, and in absence of a remedy in statute it is not open to the authority to review an order passed on the quasi-judicial side. Even otherwise, the deleting of the word “set aside” from the appellate order, makes the order itself senseless, as without setting aside impugned order of dismissal, it was not open to appellate authority to permit the employer to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The exercise of power in reviewing the order by appellate authority is thus on face of it arbitrary, therefore, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons stated, CWP No. 7978 of 2008 is allowed, order of review is set aside, and original order of appellate authority is restored, but with no order as to costs. Respondent No.4/petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1207 of 2007 -7- CWP No. 7978 of 2008 shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from the order of appellate authority. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge December 22, 2009 R.S.