Susmita Bhattacharya v. Chancellor, D.D.U. Gorakhpur Univ.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short Judgment impugned herein reads as follows:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the Chancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University – opposite party No. 1. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that case of the petitioner for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme was considered in pursuance of order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the Chancellor but the Page 2 promotion has been denied to the petitioner on certain grounds. He further submits that once direction was there by the Chancellor the matter ought to have been considered by the opposite parties in the light of the decision of the UGC and they could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion. Since the petitioner's claim for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme has been rejected by the University, the petitioner has appropriate remedy under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act for challenging the said decision. We decline to interfere in this matter on the ground of availability of appropriate alternative remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”

3. We are informed that the alternative remedy suggested by the High Court is to put the case before the Chancellor only. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the writ petition to the High Court to dispose of the same on Page 3 merits, expeditiously and preferably before the Court closes for summer vacation.

4. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of. No costs ........................ J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] ....................... J. [ R. BANUMATHI ] New Delhi; February 27, 2017.