The availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly when the challenged action (suspension) does not constitute a punishable penalty under the relevant service rules.

JUDGMENT & ORDER [CAV]

19.12.2025

[1] Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned GA for the State respondents and Mr. Th. James, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the School Management Committee (SCM).

[2] The present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner inter-alia challenging the impugned show cause order dated 10.06.2022 issued by the ZEO, Zone-III, Thoubal and his suspension order dated 15.06.2022 issued by the Secretary, Tangjeng Ningthou High School coupled with prayers for releasing his pending pay and allowances and the formation of the School Management Committee. For convenience sake, the prayer of the petitioner is reproduced as under:-

i) to admit the writ petition;

ii) issue rule nisi and call for records;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the monthly salary of the petitioner from November 2018 to August 2020 (22 months), March 2021 to December 2021 (10 months) and January 2022 to January 2023 (13 months), total 45 months and thereafter direct the respondents to regularly pay the monthly salary etc;

iv) issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing/setting aside the School Management Committee formed vide Order dated 13.01.2020, Order dated 10.03.2021 as well as the School Managing Committee wherein Y. Umakanta is the Secretary;

v) direct the authority to constitute a new school managing committee as per the Manipur Education Code;

vi) issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing/setting aside the show cause notice dated 10.06.2022, order dated 15.06.2022 of the ZEO, Zone-III, Thoubal and order dated 15.06.2022 of the Secretary, Tangjeng Ningthou High School, and in the interim to direct the respondents to pay the monthly salary of the petitioner and to pass any other appropriate interim order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

[3] During the course of the proceedings, Mr. Th. James, learned counsel appearing for the School Management Committee (R4) raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in terms of the provisions of the Government Aided School Teacher (Discipline, Punishment & Appeal) Rules, the petitioner had not approached the competent authority, and accordingly the present writ petition ought to be dismissed.

[4] On the other hand, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the provisions cited by the learned counsel for the School Management Committee is not applicable in as much as the provisions relied upon relates to punishment to be given by a valid management committee in terms of an enquiry, and whereas in the present case, the enquiry is still pending and thus, the said provisions are inapplicable in the present case of the petitioner.

[5] Upon hearing both the submissions of the contesting ld. Counsel, this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 opined that the following issues arose in the present writ petition:

(i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the suspension order passed by the School Management Committee in view of the provisions of the Government Aided Private School Teacher (Discipline, Punishment and Appeal) Rules or not?

(ii) Whether the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules with respect to the suspension especially the period prescribed in Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules will be applicable in the suspension order issued under Rule 2 of the aforesaid Pension Rules or not?

(iii) Whether the School Management Committee constitut