IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.6496/2011 Reserved on: 19.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Parul Pandit. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondent No.1. ____________________________________________________ Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Respondent No.5 issued an advertisement on 28.9.2009 whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Lecturer in Education. Petitioner- appeared in the interview on 31.10.2009 and the appointment letter was issued to her. She joined her duties on 3.11.2009. Petitioner and similarly situate persons were re-interviewed on 4.4.2010. According to the averments contained in the petition, name of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 petitioner was again recommended by the Selection Committee. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 3.8.2001 vide Annexure P-9. According to the contents of Annexure P-9, petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria fixed for the post of Lecturer. She filed reply to the same on 5.8.2011. Thereafter, impugned order Annexure P-13 dated 6.8.2011 was issued whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 6.8.2011. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma has strenuously argued that his client was fully eligible and qualified to be considered for the post in question and the action of the respondent-management to terminate the services of his client is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Ajay Sharma has also argued that writ is maintainable against respondent No.5. 3. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. B.C. Negi have jointly argued that the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy available to her to assail Annexure P-13 dated 6.8.2011. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 3 5. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer. She joined her duties on 31.10.2009. She has been served with a show cause notice on 3.8.2011. She filed the reply to the same on 5.8.2011. The management was not satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner, which led to the issuance of impugned order dated 6.8.2011 (Annexure P-13). 6. It is evident from the plain language of ordinance 37 (a) of the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973 that any dispute arising in connection with the removal of a teacher from service is to be referred to the Tribunal of arbitration referred to in rule 5 (b). Thereafter, each party to the dispute is required to submit the name of its nominee within a fortnight of the issue of letters. Thereafter, the Tribunal of arbitration has the necessary power to enquire into all the aspects of the case and the decision rendered by the Tribunal is final and binding on both the parties. It is also incumbent upon the management to implement the decision of the Tribunal of arbitration within 30 days of its communication and non-implementation is sufficient ground for disaffiliation. 4 7. According to us, since the alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner provided under the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973, petitioner is relegated to avail the same by approaching the Vice-Chancellor of respondent-University. Since we have relegated the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent- University, we have not gone into the question whether respondent No.5 is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court or not. This question is left open. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, no order as to costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 19.8. 2011 *awasthi*