SHYAM SUNDER PASRIJA Vs. THE HINDU EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD) ROHTAK THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SHRI I.D. AGHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this civil miscellaneous, the petitioner has sought clarification and modification of^he order dated 17.1.1990 in L.P.A. No. 25 or 1988. In sum and substance the grounds for modification and clarification of the order sought by the applicant are that this, Court should explain the scope of Sec. 11 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and clarify whether the respondents should not consider the case afresh, when the Government of Haryana had rejected the entity of the Governing Body and established the cause of victimisation. It is only an inference of the order dated 6.9.1984 whereby the case of the petitioner was remanded to determine the quantum of punishment which is to be clarified.

(2.) The petitioner vehmently put forth the ground for modification of the order to the effect that this Court has either by a slip or erroneously assumed on the basis of the order dated 1.9.1987 in civil writ petition 2845 of 1987 that the order dated 6.9.1984 of this Court was only confined to the quantum of punishment to be imposed. Further in the order dated 6.9.1984 passed in civil writ petition 387 of 1983, some observations were made to the effect that the Director of Higher Education had the jurisdiction to approve the penalty or reduce it or refuse to approval it. It was put forth that the judgment dated 6.9.1984 was confined to quashing of Annexures P9 and P10 of the said writ petition. No order with respect to declaring the enquiry to be valid was passed. A further error pointed out in the order dated 6.9.1984 is to the effect that it deals with only the exercise of the power of Director of Higher Education under the Act and in fact this order does express recognise revisionary power of the State Government under Sec. l l of the Act. It was wrongly assumed by the Bench that the order dated 6.9.1984 had a bearing on the revisionary powers of the State Government.

(3.) The petitioner claimed that the abovesaid errors in the order adversely affect the civil rights of the applicant and consequently the judgment be modified explaining the above referred mistakes.