ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER , by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the respondent college, respondent No. 1, Annexure -5 to the writ petition purporting to punish the petitioner, which according to the petitioner has not been done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Statute 21.02 (1) of the Kshatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Kanpur University. Kanpur. Learned standing counsel raised two objections to the maintainability of the present writ petition at this stage, firstly if the assertion of the petitioner amounts to punishment, then either the petitioner should approach the District inspector of Schools as according to the petitioner the District Inspector of Schools has not approved the punishment Imposed by the Secretary of the college, or the petitioner should have approached the District Inspector of Schools with the prayer that without the approval of the punishment, the salary of the petitioner for month of October, 2001, has not been paid and secondly, unless the District Inspector of Schools passes some orders, the petitioner has no cause of action to approach before this Court.
(3.) IN my opinion, the objections of the learned standing counsel are correct. If what the petitioner has stated that there is no punishment imposed by the respondents -management, then petitioner should have approached the District Inspector of Schools that this punishment has been imposed without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools and if it has been approved, then an appeal lies under Statute 21.02. In this view of the matter, this writ petition at this stage is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. LegalCrystal - Indian Law Search Engine - www.legalcrystal.com;