Division Bench to hear case of maintainbility of writ against decision of a private trust which runs Siwan Engineering and Technical Institute (SETI)

In Tipu Sultan vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2020), the Single Judge bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah concluded: "Having considered the matter, the Court finds substance in the objection of learned State counsel. Against any grievance of a decision of a private trust, the forum is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not the writ Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Once the Court finds that the petitioner has to go before another forum, there is no occasion to go into the merits. For the reasons aforesaid, the application stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law." The judgement was delivered on November 27, 2020. The other six respondents were: Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi, AICTE-Northern Regional Office,Kanpur, Islamia Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Siwan through its Secretary, Siwan Engineering and Technical Institute (SETI), Siwan and Principal, SETI.

The petitioner was a Assistant Professor, Siwan Engineering and Technical Institute (SETI) had approached the High Court for the quashing the order of March 1, 2020 whereby and where under SETI had illegally dismissed him from his service without any valid reason. He also sought quashing the order dated March 2, 2020 whereby and where under SETI had illegally deducted one day salary dated  February 12, 2020) without any valid reason. 

The counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection that the writ is not maintainable as it is against the decision of a private trust which runs the college. The judgement recorded that Md. Aslam Ansari, "the counsel for the petitioner could not meet the objection of learned counsel for the State and only submitted that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and due procedure of law has not been followed before passing of the order of dismissal."

The judgement clarified that "the Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter and it shall be gone into by the competent forum before which the matter is brought for adjudication, in accordance with law, which shall decide the same expeditiously."

It all began because Tipu Sultan, the appellant had participated in a protest along with other faculty menthers. The six protesting faculty members had submitted their reply to the show cause letter in March 2020. The appellant/petitioner was given a back dated dated March 5, 2010 of the Secretary, SETI alongwith regarding decision of the Governing Body to dismiss the appellant/petitioner from his service with immediate effect. The appellant has pointed out that there is specific direction by the AICTE vide its lettcr dated April 15, 2020 regarding withdrawal of terminations made during lockdown dated May 1, 2020: The appellant/petitioner had approached to the Registrar and Vice Chancellr of the affiliating Aryabhatta Knowledge University, for withdrawal of his illegal termination vide emails dated May 1, 2020 and reminder emails dated May 29, 2020 but no action was taken.

 

The LPA has been filed on the ground that the Single Judge passed the order impugned without going into merit of the case only on the ground of preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the State about maintainability of the writ petition against the decision of the private trust, which rums SETI. 

 

The LPA was filed against the Single Judge judgement on January 6, 2021 which was registered on February 3, 2021 which is listed for hearing before the Division Bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri, and Sunil Dutta Mishra. In its order dated February 18, 2025, the Division Bench had asked the appellant "to verify whether grievance of employees of 5th and 6th respondents would fall under any other statute of the State, like Education Act so as to find out he has other alternative remedy." The case listed is listed for order on Office Notes before the Court No. 15 of the Division Bench on April 22.