AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.K. Roy and M.C. Jain, JJ.—The prayer of the petitioners Is to quash the orders dated 7.1.1991 and 8.1.1991 passed by the Munsif City. Gorakhpur (respondent No. 2) as contained In Annexures-20 and 21 In Misc. Case No. 421 of 1990 arising out of Original Suit No. 2728 of 1989.
It appears that respondent No. 3, herein, filed the suit in question for grant of a decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against the defendants and for directing defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to pay Dearness Allowance to him as well as to other part time Lecturers of Law Department of Gorakhpur University by implementing Resolution No. 2 dated April 26, 1987 passed by the Executive Committee of defendant No. 2.
Mr. Dileep Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that In view of the provisions of Section 69 of the State Universities Act, no such suit could be maintainable and any order passed therein shall be wholly without jurisdiction and thus this writ petition be allowed.
Section 69 of the Act aforementioned reads thus : "Bar of suit--No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government or the Director of Education (Higher Education) or the Deputy Director (as defined in Section 60A) or the Authorised Controller or the University or any Officer, authority or body thereof In respect of anything done or purported or intended to be done in pursuance of the Act or the rules or the Statutes or the Ordinances made there under"
From a bare perusal of the aforementioned Section 69, of the Universities Act, it is crystal clear that no suit can be Instituted in respect of anything done or purported or intended to be done pursuant to the Act or the rules or the Statutes or the Ordinance made thereunder. Resolution No. 2 in question was apparently passed under the aforementioned statutory provisions.
Consequently the suit filed for implementation of Resolution No. 2 was not maintainable and impugned orders passed are without jurisdiction.
In the result, the impugned orders are quashed and this writ petition is allowed but since respondent No. 3 has not appeared before us to contest it, we make no orders as to cost.