Antony Dominic, J. 1. Petitioner in W.P(C).25396/13 is the appellant. In the writ petition, she challenged Ext.P10 order, by which, her services were terminated by the 5th respondent. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge relegating the appellant to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal as provided under clause 49 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
2. Heard learned counsel for parties.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this is a case where natural justice is violated and therefore, the enquiry conducted, leading to her termination, is vitiated. Relying on the judgment in Anant R.Kulkarni v. Y.P.Education Society [(2013) 6 SCC 515] counsel contended that in such a case, the High Court should have entertained the writ petition and considered the contentions on merits without relegating the appellant to pursue the alternate remedy of appeal.
4. The rule of alternate remedy is a self imposed restriction on the exercise of powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In various judgments, the Apex Court as also this Court have also indicated exceptions to such a rule. In so far as this case is concerned, the facts show that the appellant was a teacher in the school of the 5th respondent. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and ultimately, the misconducts were found to have been proved. This led to the issuance of Ext.P10 whereby her services were terminated. It was challenging Ext.P10, the writ petition in question was filed. In such a case, when issues of natural justice and vagueness of charges are raised and urged, necessarily that involves appreciation of facts and evaluation of disputed questions of facts. An adjudication of that nature is not possible or will not be effective in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, where a lis is decided on the basis of averments contained in the affidavits of the contesting parties. It is therefore that in such matters, courts always insist that the parties should pursue alternate statutory remedy where factual adjudication can be effectively carried out. This does not mean that the courts have refused to decide cases involving disputes of this nature, but that will only be in extreme cases where patent illegality or patent violation of natural justice are made out. We are not satisfied that this is a case which falls in that category and it is therefore that the learned single Judge has chosen to relegate the appellant to pursue alternate remedy as provided in clause 49 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws. We do not think that the appellant has made out a case for interference.
Appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. However, taking note of the pendency of this appeal, we direct that if the appellant files an appeal as directed by the learned single Judge within one month from today, the same will be entertained by the authority concerned, ignoring the delay, if any, caused in the mean while.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.
/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE