SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 23.7.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby while admitting the writ petition preferred by the respondent challenging the order terminating his services, the effect and operation of the order impugned has been stayed.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that the appellant Institution is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology : (2002) 5 SCC 111, Telefilms Ltd V UOI : (2005) 4 SCC 649 and K.K. Saksena Vs ICID : (2015) 4 SCC 670. Learned counsel submitted that while admitting the petition and granting the interim relief, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the appellants regarding availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 19(2) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 ('the Act of 1989'), has not been considered and the decisions of the Supreme Court cited in support of the contention by the appellants have also not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 12 SCC 331, CIT Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal : (2014) 1 SCC 603, Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dunlop India Ltd : (1985) 1 SCC 260, Bharat Bhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar V Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa : (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 593, Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. : (2003) 4 SCC 104 and State of UP Vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki : (2009) 17 SCC 555, learned counsel submitted that in view of the availability of efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1989, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The impugned order, which stands stayed by the learned Single Judge, was given effect to six months back and thus, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge granting final relief by way of interim relief is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church South India Trust Association : (1992) 3 SCC 1. Learned counsel urged that the learned Single Judge has arrived at the final conclusions regarding merits of the case without considering the preliminary objections first, which is fundamentally without jurisdiction. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Manubhai J. Patel and Anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda and Ors. : (2000) 10 SCC 253. Learned counsel submitted that while terminating the services of the respondent, he was paid six months salary through account transfer which has been accepted by him and thus, he is precluded from assailing the legality of the termination order.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant Institution is imparting education and thus, discharging public duty and therefore, it does fall within the definition of 'Other Authority' and thus, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the availability of alternative remedy cannot operate as absolute bar against the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that where the order passed is found to be ex facie without jurisdiction or violative of fundamental rights, the writ petition can always be entertained by this Court. Drawing the attention of this Court to the order impugned, learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge prima facie found the order to be without jurisdiction and violative of fundamental rights and thus, the admission of the writ petition and grant of interim relief, as prayed for, cannot be faulted with so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of intra-Court appeal jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, however, all of a sudden without conclusion of the inquiry, the services of the respondent have been terminated invoking clause (iii) of second proviso to Section 18 of the Act of 1989. Learned counsel submitted that when the proceedings against the respondent is admittedly governed by the statute and thus, the question of appellant Institution which is discharging public duties, being not amenable to writ jurisdiction, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition is still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge and it is always open for the appellant Institution to raise all available grounds before the learned Single Judge and there is absolutely no reason why the intra-Court appeal should be entertained by this Court against an interim order. In support of the contentions aforesaid, learned counsel has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University & Ors. : 2015 (16) SCC 530, Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors. :1993 (1) SCC 645, Rajkumar v. Director of Education & Ors. :2016 (6) SCC 541, Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Ors. v. U.O.I & Ors. :2005 (4) SCC 649, Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Shrivastava & Ors. : 2019 SCC online SC 408, Mariamma Roy v. Indian Bank & Ors. : 2009 (16) SCC 187, Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana & Ors. : 2010 (1) SCC 126, Maharashtra Chess Association v. U.O.I & Ors. :2019 SCC Online SC 932 and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Ors. : 1984 (2) SCC 369.;