UMAKANT MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for a writ of ceniorari quashing the civil court proceedings in Suit No. 42 of 1997 pending before the civil Judge. Hawaii (Junior Division), Lucknow along with a mandamus calling upon the respondent No. 3 to decide his service appeal.

(2.) The gist of the matter is that the petitioner and private respondent no. 6 were working as lecturers in the Institution run and managed by respondent No. 5 in the name and style of Rashtriya Udyog Ashram Inter College, Matlyari, Chinhat, Lucknow. There was a seniority dispute between the two which was settled by the managing committee vide its order dated 17.1.1998 contained in Annexure-7 in favour of private respondent No. 6. Feeling aggrieved against it. the petitioner filed a service appeal under Regulation 3 (1) (f) of the regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and as the appeal was still pending, the private respondent filed the aforesaid civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and the managing committee on the validity of the order dated 17.1.1998 contained in Annexure-7. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his 'possession'. On 24.1.1997, the civil court passed an ex parte order for maintenance of status-quo. It also issued notices to the defendants (Including the writ petitioner) impleaded in the suit.

(3.) The petitioner's grouse is that even though respondent No. 3 was not a party to the aforesaid suit proceedings and was rather called upon to discharge his statutory obligations while dealing with his service appeal, yet he was sitting tight over the papers on the pretext that at. a later stage, he had also been Impleaded as a party to the suit proceedings. The contention, of course. was also to the extent of attributing mala fides to the private respondent No. 6 in dragging the matter to the civil court Insplte of fact that the management had already decided the matter in his favour and it was he alone (writ petitioner) who could be aggrieved by that arrangement giving rise to the service appeal as mentioned hereinbefore.