- (1.) The petitioners, who are Semi - professional Assistants in the Aligarh Muslim University challenge the legality of decision dated 27th August, 1986, taken by the Executive Council of the University in the purported exercise of powers under Section 36 - B of the Aligarh Muslim University Act.
(2.) It appears that the Vice-chancellor took some decision with regard to some promotions. Felling aggrieved the petitioners preferred an appeal which has been disposed of by the impugned order. Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the provisions of Section 13 (6) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act and urges that the petitioners have an alternative remedy before the Visitor. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have conceded that in fact after the filling of the writ petition in this Court, the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the Visitor under Section 13 (6). In this situation, it is not open to the petitioners to pursue the remedy under Section 13 (6) as well as the remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) Sri V.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners informs us that a representation was made by and on behalf of the petitioners some - time in the month of February, 1987. Since the representation was made quite recently, it cannot be said that the Visitor has not acted with speed in disposing of the same so far. We, however, hope and trust that the Visitor will find it convenient to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within three months from the production of a certified copy of the order of this Court by the petitioners before him, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioners are Semi - professional Assistants and the controversy pertains, to their promotion.;