CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19145 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 2010 Gulab Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners, who were working as Teachers, have approached this Court with somewhat strange grievance. They would pray for issuing a writ for quashing the order dated 6.8.2010, vide which Samaj Kalyan High School, Gohana, has been de-aided with immediate effect under Rule 62(2) and (3) of Haryana School Education Board Rules, 2003, as amended in the year 2007. It is mentioned in the order that this order is in view of the resolution passed in the general body of the School to de-aid the school and this is subject to the condition that the Managing Committee shall be held liable of the staff working on the aided sanctioned post as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19145 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: required under the Rules. The liability of the State is limited to the extent of benefits that are admissible under the Pension Scheme, as applicable from time to time. On account of this order, the petitioners have been relieved from the school with immediate effect and accordingly they have challenged this order passed on 12.10.2010. Prayer is to direct the respondents to restore the functioning of the School and to issue direction to the respondents to release the arrears of salary etc. Samaj Kalyan High School, Gohana is a recognized and a Government aided Institution. The petitioners are statedly working in the School for more than 15 years against the aided posts. The staff of the school, including the petitioners, had submitted a complaint to respondent No.2, alleging that the Manager was doing various acts against the interest of the Institution and was using income of the School for his house hold expenses. The complaint was that the election of the Managing Committee had not taken place, besides some other allegations. The Managing Committee thereafter had approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No.4840 of 2010 with a prayer to de-aid the School. The petitioner then made a prayer for being impleaded as a party respondent. Their grievance was that this mode was being adopted only to remove the petitioner from service. Respondent No.2 had then served a show cause notice to the management as to why the management of the school be not taken over by the Government and as to why the administrator be not appointed in the interest of school. Respondent No.2 had also ordered an enquiry, in response to which the management clearly stated that it did not intend to close the school. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19145 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: The grievance is that without considering all these aspects, the impugned order has been passed, as a result of which the petitioners have been relieved from their services. At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner was asked to show as to how the petitioners, who were working as Teachers in the Institution, would be entitled to maintain the present petition for contesting the decision of respondent No.2 to order de-aiding the school as such. The matter in regard to grant of aid would be something, which is an issue between the Management and the Government and teachers concerned really would not have locus to challenge the same in any manner. If the management does not want to receive aid from the Government, the teachers working there would not have any locus to ask for the same. As per the counsel, the result is that the petitioners have been relieved. To challenge the same, the petitioners would have an alternative efficacious remedy to challenge their termination. The counsel for the petitioners could not explain as to how alternative remedy can not be availed. In view of this, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioners, if so advised, may have any alternative remedy available to them to challenge the order, whereby they have been relieved, if it is in violation of any legal principle. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. October 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE