..•,--< •Z-. HIQHC^RTOECHHATT^^RHATBItASPUR APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: Present: Writ Appeal No.301 of ^10 3. 4 htegrlk SNB@han Samitj, Dondilohara. through jte Presictent Jagdev Singh Thakur, S/o Raghunath Singh ThaRur, aged about 60 years, Dondilohara, DistrictDurg (CG) Sant Rajaram Shad^i Nagrik College, DondHohara through its Princjpal, Professor C.K. Chandrakar, S/o G.P. Chandrakar. aged about 45 years, Di^rtet Durg (CG) Versys State of Ghhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Educ^ition, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Commjssioner, Department of Higher Educ^tion, Rajpur Collector, Durg (CO) Sub-Divlsional OfRcer, Donclitohara, Distrfot Durg (CG) Tahsjldar, Dondilehara, Durg (CG) DJstrict Shri Anand Dadariya, counset forthe appellants. Miss Deepati Pandey, Panel Lav^er foF the Stete. Divlsion Bencli: Hon'Ne Shri Dliirendra Mlshra & Hon'Me Shri RE.N. Ghandraltar. JJ. JUDGMENT (7-9-2010) AppeMant No.1 js a duly registered society and tt is running a cotlege in Dondilohara, Durg. A dispute arose b^ween the management and the teachers working in the college. Vice Chancellor of Pt. Ravjahankar Shukla Umversity with whteh the appellant in^tutton is affiBated ^ /" f? '^^X'fSfo-V \^y -^^^^^' <Y^ appointed a Committee at the request of the institution to enqui into the matter. However, another complaint was made fey the agitaNng teachers and handful of the studeNs to the State, Hom®Mtnist®',who directed the CoHector, Durg to tatee initiatiy®regareling the demai'^s made by the teacheps. The Collector dtrected the Tehslldar to eonduet an enquiry. The Tehsildar commenced enquiry afler fegjsteringthe case. 2 The appeBants filed a petttion and prayed for qyasNng of the proceedfrigs inftiated by Tehsildar smd prayed for further dlrectton to dissolve the Enqujry Committee appointed by the r^pontfents and cooperate 1n the enquiry proceedlngs hetd by the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Vtee Chaocetlor of the Urtversity. 3. The petition has been dtemlssedwtth fhe observatier^thatirwlisputaNy the enquiry report has been submitted to the Vice Chaneellorof the University and the Vtee ChanGellor of the University hses ateo constituted an enquiry committed as aforesaid. Stece ftte appellants have not impleaded the Vlce Chancellor of the UnlversKy as a party respondeN, no relief can be granted. No aetion has been tafeen on the basis of enquiry report submttted by the Tehslldar to ttw Vlce Chancellor and further on the rsport of commjttee constttirted by the Vice Chancellor. The facte cannot be verified for warf of in^>leadment of the Unh/ersfty as a party respondent. It has been ateo cAserved that no order has been passed on the basls of report submitted etther by committee constituted by the Vice Chanceltor of the UNversity or by the Tehsildar. On submtssion of the report, ftie Universlty has to appty its mind before passing any order and thus, the petttion te pretnafejr®. It is not necessary to 90 Into the questton as to whellwr the State Govemment can direct the Tehsitdar to examine the factasituatton and submit a report when it is not clear as to whether there was emy (aw and order problem on acGount of sdleged strlke bythe teachers of the coltege and further their threatenlng statement to commit sutoide by setting them ablaze. 4 Heard leamed counset for the appellants, perused tti®pleadhigs of the respectlve parties and documents annexed with the appeal. "<L; Barve 5. On due cod'isiderations of the reasons assigned in the ItTtpugoed order for djsmissing the petttion, we are of the opini(m that the appelfmts have no groundto Impugn the above order add tlie petitlon has rightly been disnnjssed as premature. 6. In the result, the appeal is withoyt any substaRce, the samecteservee to be and ts accordtagly djsmissed at the admtedon stage iteelfwittioiM issuing any notice to the othersjde. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge