JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. These are two writ petitions, in which common questions of law and facts are involved. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in bath the writ petitions. There are, therefore, proposed to be decided together by this common judgment.
2. There is a Gauri Pathshala Sabha-a society which runs two institutions at Allahabad. They are, (i) Gauri Pathshala Intermediate College, and (ii) Rajarshi Tandon Mahila Mahavidyalaya, an associated Degree College of the University of Allahabad. Both the aforesaid colleges have separate Managing Committees. Rajarshi Tandon Mahavidhyalaya, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the College') is an associated Degree College for girls and was granted recognition by the University of Allahabad in the year 1975. It was brought on the grants-in-aid list of the Government w.e.f. 1.3.1984. The said Degree College is Governed by the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the statutes made thereunder. The affairs of the Committee of Management of the Degree College were managed by Smt. Rani Tandon, daughter-in-law of late Rajarshi Purshottam Das Tandon till the Year 1980. She was acting as the Secretary-cum-Manager of the Degree College and was also its Hony. Principal. After her resignation, Dr. G.C. Agarwal was elected as new Secretary and Manager of the institution on 18.1.1981. On the acceptance of his resignation in the month of June, 1985, Sri Kalka Prasad Mohiley was elected as Secretary-cum-Manager of the institution in July, 1985. After the resignation of Sri Mohiley., which was accepted on 4.2.1986, Sri Had Mohan Das Tandon was elected as Secretary-cum-Manager of the Institution. One Km. Sanjivini Srivastava was the Head Mistress of the Gauri Pathshala Intermediate College. She was appointed to look after the affairs of the Degree College as an officer on Special Duty in February, 1981 and was also elected as Joint Secretary of the Committee of Management of the Degree College in July, 1985 and continued on the post of Officer on Special Duty in the Degree College till 30.1.1986 when who resigned. Dr. (Km.) Manju Vishwakarama was Principal/Pracharya of the Degree College.
3. The dispute revolves round the question of appointment, or otherwise, of Smt. Shakuntala Purwar as a Routine Grade Clerk in the Degree College. Her claim is that she was validly appointed as Routine Clerk by Smt. Rani Tandon on 25.3.1977 with the approval of the Committee of Management in the pay scale of Rs. 200-320 and that it was stipulated in the appointment letter that till the Degree College is brought on the list of grants-in-aid, she will be paid a sum of Rs. 50 per month as conveyance allowance. She joined on 1.4.1977 and since then she is continuing to perform her duties as Routine Clerk in the Degree College and that she had been paid the salary for the period 1.3.1984 to 30.9.1985, and thereafter on account of sharp differences between Km. Manji Lata Vishwakarma, Principal, on the one hand, and the Manager of the Committee of Management of the College, on the other, her salary has not been paid inspite of the fact the State Government, Director of Higher Education, District Inspector of Schools and other authorities have passed specific orders to release her pay.
4. The stand taken by the Committee of Management of the College, which at the relevant time was represented by Sri Hari Mohan Das Tandon, Secretary-cum-Manager is that Smt. Shakuntala Purwar was never appointed on the post of Routine Clerk and the appointment letter dated 25.3.1977 alleged to have been signed and issued by Smt. Rani Tandon, the then Secretary of the Committee of Management is forged and fictitious. It is alleged that Sri Om Prakash Purwar, husband of Smt. Shakuntala Purwar is an employee in the office of Director of Higher Education and on account of his wielding considerable influence on the office bearers of the Committee of Management in the College, he has been successful in manipulating the various documents as well as the letter of appointment in favour of his wife, namely, Smt. Shakuntaia Purwar, who was never appointed or had worked in the college. The various orders passed by the State Government, Director of Higher Education, District Inspector of Schools and others have been challenged and assailed on the ground that they are based on forged and fictitious documents which were submitted by the earlier office bearers of the Committee of Management, particularly, the then Secretaries, S/Sri Gulab Chandra Agrawal and Kalika Prasad Mohiley, who were out to advance the cause of Smt. Shakuntala Purwar in collusion with Smt. Sanjivni Srivastava. who was appointed as Officer on Special Duty in the College. In short, therefore, the controversy between the parties boils down to this that Smt. Shakuntala Purwar is claiming herself to be the duly appointed Routine Clerk right from 1977 and is claiming her salary for the period 1.10.1985 onwards, which claim is backed by the orders of the State Government and the Statutory Educational Authorities, while according to the college and its Managing Committee, Smt. Shakuntala Purwar has never worked on the post of Routine Clerk and that the various orders by the statutory authorities who have been compelling the Principal and Management Committee to make payment of salary to her are based on forged and fictitious documents.
5. When the Committee of Management/Principal of the College failed to comply with the orders passed by the statutory authorities, an order dated 12.6.1990 was passed by the Finance Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad that in case the arrears of Salary for the period 1.10.1985 onwards are not paid to Smt. Shakuntala Purwar, further action Under Section 60-D of the Act shall be taken which would result in single operation of the account. Faced with this threat, the college along with its trust committee, as well as the Committee of Management filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 15421 of 1990 in which a prayer has been made that the Govt. Order dated 30.1.1990, orders dated 9.3.1990 passed by Director of Higher Education and orders dated 27.3,1990 and 12.6.1990 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 3 be quashed and the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to act in accordance with law and refrain from giving effect to the order of the Government dated 30.1.90 and that they may further be restrained from interferring in the working of the petitioners in demonstrating, supervising and controlling the College. Smt. Shakuntala Purwar was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the said writ petition.
6. Smt. Shakantala Purwar in her turn filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 10103 of 1994 in which she had prayed for a writ of mandamus to command the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, i.e., the Committee of Management as well as Principal of the College to prepare her salary bill for the period 1.9.1985 onwards and to release the salary and that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work in the institution and to refrain from interferring with her peaceful working. She has also claimed promotion for the post of Adhikshak Grade II. In both the writ petitions, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed.
7. Since the controversy is in between the employee Smt. Shakuntala Purwar, on the one hand, and the Committee of Management and the Principal of the College, on the other, it is proposed, for the purpose of brevity and clarity that Smt. Shakuntala Purwar shall, hereinafter be called as petitioner employee while the Committee of Management and the College would be termed as respondents for the purpose of these writ petitions.
8. Heard Sri Shailendra learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. R.G. Padia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prakash Padia, as well as the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State and other statutory educational authorities, who are respondents in the case, at a considerable length.
9. To begin with, it may be mentioned here that Dr. Padia, learned Counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objections about the maintainability of the Writ Petition No. 10103 of 1994 on the ground that the petition suffers from the defect of laches; that the highly disputed and controversial questions of fact cannot be gone into and decided in the writ jurisdiction, appointment, if any, of the petitioner was against the statutory provisions as contained in the First statute of 1976 framed under the Act, and, therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued for enforcing the prayers, which are contrary to law, i.e., in violation of the provisions of Sections 60-A and 60-E of the Act. To fortify his contention, Dr. Padia placed reliance on a number of rulings, which shall be discussed at the appropriate place. Sri Shailendra learned Counsel for the petitioner repelled all the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and asserted that since the petitioner has been recognised by the statutory authorities as having been duly appointed on the post of Routine Clerk in the Year 1977 and has been found to be actually working, she is entitled to the payment of salary and to work in the College as her appointment and working has been duly acknowledged and recognised by the statutory educational authorities as well as the Government. Both the parties have filed a number of documents in support of their rival contentions.
10. In support of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Routine Clerk in the year 1977 by Smt. Rani Tandon, the then Manager/Acting Principal, a number of documents have been brought on record in Civil Misc. Writ No. 10103 of 1994. A Copy of the appointment letter dated 25.3.1977, which is Annexure 1 indicates that the petitioner was appointed by Smt. Rani Tandon in her capacity as the Secretary of the Society on the clear understanding that till the College is brought on the list of grants-in-aid, the petitioner will continue to receive Rs. 50/- as conveyance allowance. The original appointment letter or its copy signed by Smt. Rani Tandon have not been brought on record either by the petitioner or by the respondents. The fact remains that the existence of the letter of appointment is beyond doubt. Km. Manju Lata Vishwakarma, Principal of the College, addressed a letter dated 15.2.1981, Annexure 3, whereby she informed the petitioner that she has received her appointment letter from Smt. Rani tandon, the then Secretary of the Institution and that the petitioner should not worry on that account as the letter is safe with her. Sri Hari Mohan Das, who became the Secretary of the Institution wrote a letter on 16th May, 1985 (Annexure R.A. 7 to the rejoinder affidavit) to his predecessor Sri G.C. Agarwal, who in his turn made, an endorsement on 18.5.1985 to require the Principal of the College to hand over the appointment letter, which she had received from Smt. Rani Tandon to Sri Hari Mohan Das. On the basis of the appointment letter dated 25.3.1977, the petitioner joined as a Routine Clerk in the College on 1.4.1977 vide Annexure 2. The appointment letter as would appear, had been taken into consideration by all the authorities, inasmuch as, determination of pay of the petitioner was made on its basis when the college was brought on the list of grants-in-aid w.e.f. 1.3.1984. Annexure R.A. 8 to the rejoinder affidavit is the letter dated 3.9.1985 written by Sri Shyama Charan Jauhari, Asstt. Accounts Officer, in which though he has expressed his doubts about the capacity of Smt. Rani Tandon to appoint the petitioner on the post of Routine Clerk, it has been accepted that she was actually working and that from 1.3.1984, pay of the petitioner be fixed at the minimum of the Scale of Rs. 354-550.
11. There is another set of documents which would indicate that the petitioner was working on the post of Routine Clerk. In the year 1981 a proposal was mooted to bring the college on the list of grants-in-aid. Annexure 4 is the letter which was addressed by the then Secretary of the institution Sri G.C. Agarwal to Director of Edlcatopm (Higher Education), Allahabad. In the annexure of the said letter, the petitioner has been shown to be working as a Clerk on the unapproved post in the pay scale of Rs. 200-320 w.e.f. 1.4.1977. The same fact was repeated for the grants of the year 1981-82. These documents for the governmental grant have been signed not only by Dr. G.C. Agarwal, Secretary of the institution but also by the Chairman/President (Mr. Justice M.P. Mehrotra), officiating Principal of the College Km. Manju Lata Vishwakarma, Treasurer and the Officer on Special Duty. Sri Kalka Prasad Mohiley who succeeded Sri G.C. Agarwal as Secretary wrote to the Director of Education on 19.7.1985, Annexure-5 (A), for financial grant to the non-Government Colleges. He had filed an affidavit for claiming the grant and in the declaration form 'Ka', the name of Smt. Shakuntala Purwar appears as a Routine Clerk and she has been shown working from 1.4.1977 and her pay at the relevant time was shown as Rs. 414 in the pay scale of Rs 354-550. In the said declaration form, a note has specifically been appended in the bottom that the petitioner was working right from 1.4.1977 and that the question of determination of her pay is under consideration of the Managing Committee. This declaration is also signed by Km. Manju Lata Vishwakarma. On 6.1.1983, Dr. G.C. Agarwal addressed a letter (Annexure-7) to the Director (Higher' Education) whereby he forwarded option of the petitioner for determination of her salary in pursuance of the Government Order dated 8.9.1982. The option form signed by the petitioner was duly countersigned by Km. Manju Lata Vishwakarma and she has appended and signed the certificate at the bottom of the option form. In the certificate, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner is working as a Routine Clerk on whole time basis during the period 1.7.1979 to 29.9.1981 and that she continues to be in service. This letter was but up before the Managing Committee of the institution in its meeting dated 17.7.1983 chaired by Mr. Justice M.P. Mehrotra. The proceedings (Annexure-8) of the said meeting indicate that the Setter dated 6.1.1983, Annexure 7, was brought to the notice of the Committee which confirmed the same.
12. After the College was recognised for the purpose of grants-in-aid, the petitioner was admittedly paid her salary for the period 1.3.1984 to 31.8.1985, Not only this, the salary bill for the month of September, 1985 was signed by Km. Manju Lata Vishwakarma, Principal of the College and in this manner, salary for the period upto September, 1985 has been paid to the petitioner.
13. There are a number of documents, brought on record of the present two writ petitions, which clinch the issue that the petitioner had been actually functioning and working as Routine Clerk in the College. The Principal of the College, as well as, the Managers made endorsements on the various letters in the name of the petitioner, who in her turn submitted the notes for approval. Absence of the petitioner from the College was reported. There is correspondence on the record, which establishes that the relations between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the Principal of the College, Km. Manju Lata Vishwakarma on the other were highly strained and an ugly incident which had occurred in the college, in which the petitioner is alleged to have pushed aside, claimed their personal bitterness. This incident also is a pointer to the fact that the petitioner was actually working in the college. Bulky evidence on the point need not be sifted and each document is not required to be discussed in the writ jurisdiction. A broad based view of the entire evidence available on record has to be taken.
14. Shorn of all superfluities, the evidence, which has appeared on record with regard to the appointment and functioning of the petitioner as Routine Clerk may be said to be overwhelming. The weight of the evidence is that Smt. Rani Tandon, the then Secretary/Principal, as a matter of fact, appointed the petitioner as a Routine Clerk in the year 1977. The petitioner continued to work on the said post. She was not being paid regular salary as the College was under great financial stringency and constraints. It was a private College and was not getting any Government assistance till it was brought on the list of grants-in-aid w.e.f. 1.3.1984. In all the documents, through which the grant was sought, petitioner was shown to be working as Routine Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1977. The various authorities such as Chairman/President, Secretary and the Treasurer of the Committee of Management as well as the Principal of the College have signed the various documents and have certified in unequivocal terms that the petitioner was working as Routine Clerk." The Committee of Management had adopted a resolution after due enquiry that the petitioner had been validly appointed and was entitled to her salary. There are documents to establish that the case of the petitioner for determination of her pay in the usual pay scale of the Routine Clerk was referred and in fact and in reality, the pay of the petitioner was allowed to be fixed at the minimum of the scale right from the date the college came on the list of grants-in-aid. The petitioner was running from pillar to post to get her salary released. Ultimately, a report was submitted by Dr. Suresh Chandra Tewari, Assistant Director of Education on 25.9.1986 in which he had concluded that the disbursement of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.1977 is according to rules as she has been shown to have been duly appointed and working in the various returns and pay bills which were signed by the Manager of the institution and the principal of the College. After taking into consideration the report of Dr. Suresh Chandra Tewari, Assistant Director, Higher Education and other relevant documents as well as the circumstances of the case, the State Government had issued the order dated 30.1.1990 by which it was directed that the petitioner is entitled to salary of the post of Routine Clerk, It is on the basis of this Govt. Order that the Director of Higher Education issued orders on 9.3.1990 for the disbursement of the salary to the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, in his turn wrote a letter dated 23.3.1990. In spite of categoric orders of the statutory authorities, the management failed to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period 1.10.85 onwards. It was with a view to enforce the orders of the State Government and the other statutory authorities that the Accounts Officer in the office of the DIOS wrote a letter dated 12.6.1990 to the Manager of the institution to comply with the orders by releasing the pay of the petitioner within a specified time failing which appropriate action under Section 60-D of the Act for single operation of the accounts was to follow.
15. The sheet anchor of the case of the respondents is the report of Dr. S.N. Lal, Reader, Economics Department,. Allahabad University, Allahabad, who was appointed by the Committee of Management to enquire about the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the petitioner. Annexure 10 to the writ petition No. 15421 of 1990 is the detailed report of Dr. S.N. Lal. He has concluded that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, was not appointed on the post of Routine Clerk and in any case, her appointment was not valid for want of permission of Director of Higher Education, as required under Section 60-A (iii) (b) of the Act. This report has not been accepted by the State Government and rightly so, because earlier the matter was thoroughly investigated and scrutinised by a committee appointed by the Committee of Management, consisting of S/Sri G.C. Agarwal, D.D. Khanna, A.D. Sharma, Janak Pandey, R.S. Rastogy and H.C. Jaiswal. The Committee of Management adopted the resolution on its basis and an report was sent for safe custody of the DIOS as the various members and office bearers of the Committee of Management were at loggers-head. Subsequently, the Committee of Management, of which Sri Hari Mohan Das was Secretary, rescinded the resolution earlier adopted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the committee to enquire about the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the petitioner did not validly come into existence and it was sequel to this subsequent resolution that the enquiry was sought to be conducted by Dr. S.N. Lal. The Government has before it the report of an independent person, i.e., Dr. Suresh Chandra Tiwari, Assistant Director, Higher Education. In the backdrop of the above facts, the respondents cannot take the shelter of the report of Dr. S.N. Lal.
16. The case of the respondents (Committee of Management, and the Principal of the College) appears to be that the petitioner and her husband Om Prakash Purwar, who is an employee in the office of Director of Higher Education, have manipulated all the documents with the connivance of S/Sri G.C. Agarwal and K.P. Mohiley who have been the Secretaries of the Committee of Management as well as the officer on special duty, Smt. Sanjivini Srivastava. This bald assertion on behalf of the respondents, in the absence of any tangible and concrete evidence cannot be accepted particularly when it is against the proved facts and believeable evidence. Now to say that Dr. G.C. Agarwal, Secretary had obtained the signatures of the Chairman/President of the Committee of Management as well as other office bearers, including the Principal of the College in a deceitful manner and with a view to confer advantage on the petitioner is too much to swallow. All the documents have been signed by very respectable and responsible persons and it was not expected of them to have blindly put their signatures without realising the implications thereof. Dr. G.C. Agarwal, whose services as Secretary of the Committee of Management of the institution earned praise and appreciations, was Head of the Department of Commerce in Allahabad University. Similarly Sri K.P. Mohiley who succeeded him as Secretary was ex-Registrar of the same University. The petitioner or for that matter her husband cannot be expected to have such a monstrous capacity so as to hoodwink all the office bearers and statutory authorities to manoeuvre and manipulate the documents in their favour renging for a period more than a decade. The various pleas taken by the Committee of Management in its writ petition No. 15421 of 1990 are nothing but an excuse to circumvent the orders of the Government and other statuary authorities whereby a clear direction has been given to pay salary to the petitioner. The Management cannot be allowed to resort to subterfuges.
17. The college was founded and established the memory of great son of soil, late Rajrishi Purshottam Das Tandon with a view to expand women education. The College had to face rough weather partly on account of the financial crisis but primarily and mainly due to the strife between the office bearers, the laudable cause for which the college was established was perhaps forgotten. There have been successive changes in the office of the Secretary and each one of them have faced the on-slaughts of serious allegations. Smt. Rani Tandon, who was one of the family members of late Rajrishi Purshottam Das Tandon and had served as Secretary/Principal, was not spared as serious allegations of fraud and embezzlement were levelled against her. There was tussle between the Secretary of the Committee of Management and the Officiating Principal of the College. To bridge up the yawning gap and differences, an officer on Special Duty was appointed but she too was not spared of various accusations. The obvious result was that the college campus became the open filed to settle the scores between warring groups. Unfortunately, the petitioner, who was petty employee being a Routine Clerk, fell prey to the evil designs of one group or the other. Even though, she had been appointed by Smt. Rani Tandon in the year 1977, regardless of the fact whether she could do so or not, on the date on which the institution was brought on the list of grants-in-aid, the petitioner was functioning as a Routine Clerk, and therefore, the statutory authorities, by one voice had directed the payment of salary to the petitioner right from 1.3.1984 onwards. The record of the two writ petitions loudly speaks of the pique and anamosity which Km. Manju Lata Vishwakarma, officiating Principal of the College had entertained against the petitioner. She went even to the extent of defying the orders of the Secretary of the Committee of Management as well as statutory authorities. The differences between the two ladies sharpened with the support which was received by the Principal from the Secretary of the Committee of Management after S/Sri G.C. Agarwal and K.P. Mohiley made their exit. The Principal of the College and the Secretary have perhaps taken a vow that they would not make the payment of salary to the petitioner, what come it may, despite the positive and authoritatives orders of the State Government and Director of Higher Education. This is virtually a militant attitude which cannot be justified by any amount of assertions and arguments. The orders passed by the State Government and other authorities cannot be interferred with. They have to be respected and implemented.
18. A short and swift reference may now be made to the various legal submissions made by Dr. R.G. Padia, on behalf of the respondents to defeat the claim of the petitioner. The first point, which was emphatically asserted by Dr. Padia is that the appointment of the petitioner was not made as per statutory provisions and consequently, this Court, exercising the writ jurisdiction would be slow enough to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondent (Committee of Management) to disobey the law. In support of his contention, Dr. Padia placed reliance on State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ram Deo Yadav and Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 493, which is based on the darlier case of J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narehdra Mohan, (1994) 2 SCC 630, in which it has been held that High Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government to disobey law. Reliance was also placed on State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chand and Ors., (1996) 9 SCC 309 : (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1808 (SC), in which it was held that no mandamus can be issued either to refrain from enforcing law or to act contrary to law. It was observed thus :-
"................Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law."
In Hope Textile Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 1995 Supp (3) SCG-199. It was held that a writ of mandamus can be issued to a statutory authority to compel it to perform its statutory obligations. !t cannot issue to compel him to pass an order in violation of statutory provisions. There can be no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. No Court would direct a statutory authority in such a manner that if the direction of the Court is followed/obeyed, it would amount to disobeying the law. The Court cannot be a party for flagrant violation of law. Now the question is whether in the circumstances of the present case, issue of mandamus, as prayed by the petitioner, would amount to violation of statutory provisions or it would subserve the interest of the petitioner who had corne before the Court for the enforcement of her innate right to get wages for the work done by ner. Admittedly, when the petitioner was appointed in the year 1977, the college though associated with the University, was a private College as it was not receiving any grants-in-aid. The petitioner was appointed on the clear understanding that till the college receives grants-in-aid, she shall be paid conveyance allowance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. The management, for the matter, Secretary of the institution, was competent to make payment of the conveyance allowance to a clerk and the payment of the nature did not require any sanction or approval of any statutory authority. Chapter XI-A relating to payment of salary to teachers and other employees of the Degree Colleges contained in the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 was brought on the statute book by U.P. Act No XXI of 1975. Section 60-A (iii) of the Act defines the expression 'employee' in relation to a college to mean a non-teaching employee of such college, (a) in respect of whose employment maintenance grant was being paid by the State Government during the financial year 1974-75; or (b) who was appointed to a post with the permission of the Director of Education (Higher Education). By notification dated 12.3.1985, the Joint Director in the Directorate of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad and the Regional Officers of the Higher Education have been authorised to perform all, or, any function of the Deputy Director for the purposes of Chapter Xi-A. In the year 1977 the provisions of the aforesaid Chapter did not apply to the petitioner as she was not duly appointed Clerk and was not allowed to draw salary in the normal scale. Under Chapter XI-A, only those employees were entitled to the payment of salary who fell in categories (a) and (b) above. Since the case of the petitioner did not come within the purview of the said clauses, the question of disbursement of salary to her under Chapter XI-A did not arise and, therefore, reference to the provisions of the said Chapter is otiose.
19. Chapter XXIII relating to the qualifications and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the associated college was inserted in the First Statute, 1976 framed under the Act by way of 3rd Amendment, which is dated 11.5.1977. Paragraph 25.04 of the amended first statute provides that appointment of employees shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Education (Higher education) or an officer authorised by him in this behalf. With reference to the said provision, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that no approval, at any point of time, to the appointment of the petitioner was accorded either by the Director of Higher Education or by an officer authorised by him in his behalf and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is against the provisions of law. This belated submission is wide off the mark. The petitioner was appointed on 25.3.1977, i.e., prior to the introduction of Chapter XXIII on 11th May, 1977. The provisions of paragraph 25.04 would not be attracted to the case of the appointment of the petitioner. In any case, after the college was brought on the list of grants-in-aid of the State w.e.f. 1.4.1984, the approval to the appointment of the petitioner came to be accorded by the Director of Higher Education to whom all the relevant details were submitted. The information was transmitted to the Director of Higher Education that the petitioner was working as a Routine Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1977. As said above, reference was also made for fixation of pay of the petitioner in the regular scale. The concerned authority had approved the appointment of the petitioner by permitting her to draw the salary from 1.3.1984 at the rate of minimum of the scale at Rs. 354/- per month and that the next increment was to fall due on 1.3.1985. After fixation of pay and passing of the order by the statutory authorities, pay has been released in favour of the petitioner for the period 1.3.1984 to 30.9.1985. The statutory authorities have not taken an exception to the appointment of the petitioner. On the other hand, the authority, who is required to accord approval, is insisting for the payment of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.1985 onwards. The Committee of Management or for that matter Principal of the College cannot now take the plea after a lapse of about two decades that the petitioner was not validly appointed. The management, of necessity, has to accept the petitioner as having been validly appointed. She has to be paid salary in the light of the directions of the State Government and the Director of Higher Education, right from 1.3.1984. The petitioner is not claiming her salary for the period prior to 1.3.1984. The statutory authorities have issued directions for the payment of salary to the petitioner as the petitioner has indefeasible right to receive salary for the work done by her. The directions of the statutory authorities are according to law. In case a writ of mandamus, as prayed for, by the Committee of Management in Civil Misc. Writ No. 15421 of 1990 is issued, it would be clearly in conflict with the statutory orders, which have been passed according to law. The various rulings relied upon by the learned Court for the Committee of Management on the point are of no help. On the other hand, issuance of a writ of mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 10103 of 1994 is necessary to uphold the majesty of law for one simple reason that the Committee of Management cannot afford to flout the directions of the statutory authorities which are backed by law.
20. The second point urged on behalf of the Committee of Management is that since the writ petition filed by Smt. Shakuntala Purwar involves investigation of complicated facts and recording of evidence, the proper remedy of the petitioner is to file a Civil Suit rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission that investigation of complicated facts and recording of evidence is not permissible in writ Jurisdiction, Dr. Padia placed reliance on the observations made in Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 942. I have throughly studied the said ruling the find that the observations made therein are not of universal application. The controversial questions raised by the Committee of Management in Civil Misc. Writ No. 15421 of 1990 regarding invalidity of the appointment of the petitioner as it is allegedly the outcome of fraud, manipulation and fabrication, certainly cannot be gone into and scrutinised in the writ jurisdiction for one simple reason that such investigation would involve recording and sifting of evidence, for which a Civil Court may be the proper remedy. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 10103 of 1994-Smt. Shakuntala Purwar has simply prayed that the orders passed by the statutory authorities which have been blatantly defied by the Committee of Management/Principal of the College, should be directed to be obeyed and complied with. She has simply claimed the relief of payment of salary to her in the light of the directions and the orders issued by the State Government and other statutory authorities. It is the Committee of Management which is raising the various issues of complicated nature and if the writ petition is to fail on this score, it is the writ petition of the Committee of Management, i.e., Civil Misc. Writ No. 15421 of 1990 rather than the Civil Misc. Writ No. 10103 of 1994 filed by Smt. Shakuntala Purwar. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents to defeat the claim of the petitioner is nothing but verbose and merits rejection.
21. The third technical, or say, a legal ground, which has been pressed into service on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner is guilty of laches and, therefore, she cannot enforce her right by means of a writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on State of M.P. v. Bhai Lal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006 and Dr. Brijesh Rai v. State of U.P., 1997 (2) ESC 1141 (Alld.). The petitioner- Smt. Shakuntala Purwar in her writ petition No. 10103 of 1994 has not challenged any order passed by any authority against her. She has simply sought the direction of this Court in the nature of writ of mandamus against the respondent (Committee of Management)/Principal to pay her salary w.e.f. 1.10.85 onwards in persuance of the orders of the State Government and; other statutory authorities and that the Committee of Management be directed S not to interfere with the performance of her duties as a Routine Clerk and on the basis of her length of service, she may be promoted to the next higher post. The petitioner has been approaching the various authorities by addressing more than a dozen of letters. She also made several representations but all in vain. She made complaints on the basis of which enquiries were made by Assistant Director, Higher Education, The matter was referred to the State Government. Specific orders were passed for the payment of salary to the petitioner by the State Government on 30.1.1990. The Director of Education reiterated the order of payment of salary by order dated 9.3.1990 and similarly, the DIOS by letter dated 23.3.90 required the Committee of Management to pay salary. It is the Committee of Management which set the ball of litigation rolling by filing Civil Misc. Writ No. 15421 of 1990 and the relief claimed in effect was that the orders passed by the State Government and other authorities be set at naught, meaning thereby, the Committee of Management may not be compelled to pay the salary to the petitioner. On account of the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was not getting salary despite the fact that the claim of the petitioner was backed by the firm directions of the statutory authorities. When the petitioner failed in her attempts to get the salary released, she had no option but to approach this Court by filing writ petition obviously to countervail the move of the Committee of Management. The submission that the writ petition filed by Smt. Shakuntala Purwar is highly belated and fails on the ground of laches is far fetched and, therefore, untenable. Moreover, the petitioner- Smt. Shakuntala Purwar has claimed payment of salary and promotion through her writ petition. Both the claims are recurring in nature. The writ petition, therefore, cannot be thrown out at the threshold, on the ground of being barred by limitation.
22. In view of foregoing discussions both on legal and factual matrix, the Committee of Management has no case to seek the reliefs as claimed in Civil Misc. Writ no. 15421 of 1990. The appointment of the petitioner-Smt. Shakuntala Purwar cannot, now, be challenged as it has been accepted, approved and confirmed by the statutory authorities. There is no ground to frustrate or negate the direction made by the statutory authorities to release the pay of Smt. Shakuntala Purwar. The impugned orders dated 30.1.1990, 9.3.1990, 23.3.1990 and 12.6.1990 have been passed in accordance with law. They cannot be quashed.
23. In the result, the Civil Misc. Writ No. 15421 of 1990 is hereby dismissed. Civil Misc. Writ No. 10103 of 1994 filed by Smt. Shakuntala Purwar succeeds and is allowed. It is, hereby directed that the Committee of Management/Principal of Rajrishi Tandon Mahila MahaVidyalaya Allahabad, respondent No. 4 shall pay the entire arrears of salary to the petitioner right from 1.10.1985 onwards within a period of two months to be reckoned from the date of this judgment and order. They shall also continue to pay regular salary to the petitioner for the period she has worked and to consider her case for promotion in accordance with law. The petitioner shall not be prevented by the respondents from performing her duties as Routine Clerk in the institution aforesaid.