IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that a writ petition should not be entertained when an effective alternative remedy exists, except in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.-Vakalatnama filed by Shri Parmatma Pd. Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No. 5, is taken on record.

2. Heard Ms. Shweta Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for State, Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 and Sri Parmatma Pd. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 5.

3. Notices to opposite party No. 4 is hereby dispensed with.

4. At the very out-set, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has raised preliminary objection that the order dated 11th October 2023 passed by the Vice Chancellor is revisable under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1973'). He added that the Vice Chancellor has taken decision vide order dated 11th October 2023 and refuted the claim of the petitioner while observing that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Associate Professor on 14th May 2022, and therefore, he is not entitled to be posted on rotation basis, as the same can be between the Professors, who can be inducted as Chairman/Convener of Board of Studies.

5. Adding his arguments, he submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy before the Chancellor, against the order passed by the Vice Chancellor and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable on this ground alone.

6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment in Committee of Management DAV Post Graduate College and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2018 LawSuit(All) 2163 and has referred paragraph 13, 14 and 15 of the abovesaid judgment.

7. Paragraph 13, 14 and 15 of the abovesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder :

''13. The question as to whether the order of the Vice Chancellor impugned herein is sustainable or not, could very well be examined in Reference under Section 68 of the Act. It is noteworthy that the petitioner Committee claims that meeting dated 25.9.2016 in which it was elected was called by Narendra Kumar Srivastava, Secretary of the parent society. Concededly, the person initially elected as Secretary of the parent society was Vinod Kumar Srivastava. The petitioners claim that he was expelled from the post of Secretary of the parent society on 25.3.2016 and his membership was also ceased. So far, there is no adjudication by any authority upholding expulsion of Vinod Kumar Srivastava. The said dispute is pending before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. In order to be successful, the petitioners have also to establish that Vinod Kumar Srivastava was validly expelled and in his place, Narendra Kumar Srivastava was validly elected. In the opinion of the Court, these issues, which require appreciation of evidence, should be permitted to be examined in Reference under Section 68 of the Act.

14. The remedy of Reference under Section 68 is an efficacious remedy, inasmuch as the Chancellor, while exercising power under Section 68 pertaining to a dispute relating to election, is also invested with specific power to pass such orders of stay as he thinks just and expedient. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 44972 of 2013 Managing Committee Shibli National PG College v. State of U.P. and others by judgment dated 30.9.2013 declined to entertain a writ petition holding that the remedy under Section 68 by way of Reference is a comprehensive remedy where questions of fact as well as law both could be raised and decided. Again, in Committee of Management, Raja Balwant Singh College and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(1) ADJ 781, I have taken the same view and declined to entertain the writ petition relegating the parties to invoke the remedy of Reference under Section 68 of the Act.

15. No doubt, there is no absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition under Art