A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, namely, respondent nos. 1 and 3. The objection is that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy by way of approaching to the Chancellor under section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act against the impugned order passed by the Vice Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, on 26-7-1983 determining, inter se, seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3, who are, both teachers in the Mahajan Degree College, Chauri-Chaura Gorakhpur, which is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University and is governed, by the aforesaid Act and the statutes framed by the Gorakhpur University.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find considerable merit in the above objection. The objection is also supported by two decisions of this Court, one in the case of Dr. Data Ram Sharma v. The Vice Chancellor, Meerut University, 1982 Education Cases 80 and the other in Managing Committee v. The Vice Chancellor, 1980 UP LB EC 270. In both these decisions the view taken was that if remedy is available to the petitioner under section 68 in regard to an order passed against him by the Vice Chancellor who is admittedly an officer of the University within the meaning of section 9 of the Act, the petitioner ought to be relegated to the statutory remedy provided under section 68 of the Act. The decision cited by the petitioner in both these cases namely, Lala Hridaya Narain v. ITO, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 33, was distinguished by both the Division Benches. The situation in the present case is exactly the same as that which persuaded this Court, in the above two cases, to dismiss the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under section 68 of the Act. This petition was filed at a time when the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 had, both, staked their claim for officiating as Principal of the college, each claiming to be senior to the other. The Managing Committee has, in exercise of its powers under statute 18.4 upheld the claim of the petitioner and held that he was senior to the respondent no. 3. Aggrieved by that decision the respondent no. 3 filed an appeal before the Vice Chancellor who allowed the same by the impugned order. As the post of the Principal was, at the time when this petition was presented, vacant and the petitioner was claiming the right to officiate as the Principal by virtue of his alleged seniority over the respondent no. 3, this Court appears to have been persuaded to admit this petition notwithstanding the fact that the remedy by way of representation was available to him under section 68 of the Act.
(3.) THE position has now changed. It is not disputed that the regular Principal of the institution, namely, Sri Rama Kant Gupta, is currently acting as Principal of the college. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent no. 3 can, therefore, claim any right to officiate as Principal, as the post itself is not vacant for the time being. THEre is, hence, no such urgency as to warrant entertainment of this petition. Further the controversy involved in this petition depends on investigation of facts about which there is a serious dispute between the parties. THE dispute can, in these circumstances, be more appropriately resolved within the frame-work of the statute itself by the Chancellor under section 68. THE petitioner should therefore exhaust his remedy under section 68 of the Act before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in case his claim for seniority is negatived by the Chancellor. In the circumstances mentioned above it does not seem necessary to go into the merits of the claim to seniority put forward by the two parties at present. That is a matter, which should be decided by the Chancellor under section 68 if the petitioner chooses to file a representation under that provision. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that his representation if filed now would obviously be barred by limitation. It is urged that if this Court had not entertained the petition and dismissed the same on the ground of alternative remedy, he would have approached the Chancellor immediately and would not have been confronted by the objection of limitation.;