Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. SUSHILA RAI versus VICE

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Sushila Rai v. Vice-Chancellor, Purvanchal University, Jaunpur & Others - WRIT - A No. 26969 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 541 (10 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 23rd April, 2001 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Purvanchal University, Jaunpur.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and Sri Anil Tiwari for respondent nos. 1 and 7 that against the impugned order the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy of filing a representation before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act').

We find considerable force in the in the preliminary objection advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents as indeed against the impugned order the petitioner can file a representation under Section 68 of the Act.

We, therefore, decline to entertain this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

However, the learned Chancellor is requested to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after inviting objections from the persons interested expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation before him which the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today. The interim order passed earlier by this Court shall continue for a period of four weeks. The petitioner can make an application before the learned Chancellor for further extension of the order.

Date: 10.1.2007

GS-26969


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.