Ravi S.Dhavan - (1.) THE petitioner, Syed Yaqeen Ahmad, is the Head Master at the Darul-Ulum Ahela Sunnat Madarsa Ashrafia Mishbabul Ulum, Mubarakpur, Azamgarh, who, in effect, claims that this Court should Interfere In the order of suspension dated 3 February, 1993, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. THE contention in the writ petition is that during the course of examination duties on 3 February, 1993, the President of the Committee of Management, aforesaid, misbehaved with the petitioner. THE petitioner lodged a complaint with the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, respondent no. 1. THE copy of the complaint is the Annexure-3 to the writ petition. THE order of the suspension continues. On behalf of the petitioner, it Is submitted that the order of the suspension is without jurisdiction and it ought to be stayed.
(2.) THE first question which arises is whether on an order of suspension passed by a private party is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court when a grievance petition or a visitation is available to a State authority and there is yet time for the State authority to interfere in the matter and the petitioner short circuits the procedure. In answer to the proposition, as submitted on a point of law in the writ petition itself, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aran Tandon, Advocate cites the decision of the Supreme Court as Francis John v. The Director of Education, AIR 1990 SC 423. Thus, it is contended that if an institution receives grant-in-aid, a writ Is maintainable. The submission on its own is too generalised and the citation has been torn out of its context. If the decision of the Supreme Court is to apply to the circumstances of the present case then the petitioner must first perron the State authority which controls the grant-in-aid to take an initiative to consider the petitioner's grievance. This, the petitioner has not done. From a perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Dispute Settlement Committee In question was exercising it's powers after it had had an occasion to interfere by visitation or otherwise. The petitioner has not permitted this.
(3.) THE authority which would control the institution should anything go wrong is the District Inspector of Schools, concerned. Only when this authority, regard being had to the circumstances that the institution receives the grant-in-aid, either acts incorrectly or declines to act at all, in either ease this Court may be approached by a writ petition. If the decision of the authority, inclusive of an alternate remedy, is manifestly erroneous and suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record then a writ of certiorari may be issued for the examination of the decision on whether it is incorrect. On the other hand, if the authority declines to act within the reasonable time, a writ of certiorari will seek the record and a mandamus will require the authority to act in accord with the powers vested in such an authority. This is exactly what happened before the Supreme Court and the only principle which was laid down was that once an authority has been put under an obligation to make a State grant to an institution then there is a corresponding duty on the authority to monitor the institutions activities within the control prescribed.;