A writ petition can guide parties to appropriate channels for grievances, particularly against private institutions.

JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias.C.P. J.

Respondents 1 and 2 in WP(C)No.31260 of 2022 is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.11.2022 in the writ petition filed by the first and second respondents herein. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 praying inter alia that the appellants be directed to pay the the alleged arrears of salary and also to quash Exts.P8 and P10, which demanded the writ petitioners to pay three months salary in lieu of notice they had to give for leaving the service of the institution.

2. The appellant institution, affiliated to the third respondent – University, contended that no amounts are due to the writ petitioners as arrears of salary and on the contrary they are liable to pay three months salary in lieu of notice for having left the service of the institution. It was their further contentions that the writ petition is not maintainable against a Private Self Financing College and the remedy of the writ petitioners if any was to approach the competent civil court.

3. The University had contended before the learned single Judge that if the writ petitioners approached the competent authority of the University through an appropriate representation, the same will be considered as the college is an affiliated one bound to comply with the Rules relating to affiliation as are mandatory and in case the University find that the college is acting contrary to the Rules and Regulations relating to affiliation, the University is competent to take necessary action including to dis-affiliate. Accordingly, the learned single Judge disposed the writ petition making it clear that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent authority of the University through an appropriate representation/appeal and in the event of they doing so, respondents 1 and 2 were also directed to be heard and all contentions of the parties were left open.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, respondents

1 and 2 – College is in appeal contending that the writ petition was not maintainable and that no direction could have been granted in the nature of the reliefs claimed.

5. We have heard Sri.Aamir Sohrab.M.M., the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.A.K.Alex, the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners and Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned standing counsel for the third respondent University.

6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the firm view that the judgment under appeal calls for no interference as no prejudice is caused to the appellants by the directions issued in the judgment under appeal. The writ petitioners were granted the liberty to move the University and the University was directed to hear the appellant-institution as well in case the representation is filed. None of the rights of the parties were decided in the judgment under appeal and no direction was issued to the appellant-college in the writ petition for them to be aggrieved.

In such circumstances, we find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed.