IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.16533 of 2009 Date of Decision:06.12.2011 Vinod Sharma .....Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commissioner Amritsar-cum-Chairman and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) Counsel for the petitioner was neither present on 5.8.2011 nor on 30.9.2011. He is not present eve today after pass over. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is already on record. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable against the private school as question of maintainability has been decided in C.W.P. No.16718 of 1989 decided on 17.3.2011. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “1. There is no representation for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents are present. Learned counsel for the State contends that the prayer for arrears of dearness allowance, interim relief, village allowance etc. cannot become a subject of writ petition, since the claim is C.W.P. No.16533 of 2009 -2- possible if at all a``gainst only respondent Nos.3 and 4 and since they are private schools, there is no scope for invoking a writ jurisdiction. Even while dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the State under the appropriate provisions for directions to the school to secure to them the appropriate redressals. 2. The writ petitions are dismissed.” In view of the decision in said C.W.P, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under law. December 06, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE