DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.24 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20586-2023 2 framework, is vested exclusively in the Educational Tribunal. It is further contended that disciplinary action taken by the petitioner- College against its employees is not amenable to appellate scrutiny by the respondent No.1- University. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner- College, in exercise of the powers vested in it, took a conscious decision to terminate the services of respondent No.3. In the event respondent No.3 was aggrieved by the termination order, the only statutory remedy available was to invoke the jurisdiction of the Educational Tribunal. It is argued that respondent No.1- University could not have assumed the role of an appellate authority and set aside the order of termination. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner- College, this Court posed a specific query to learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2- University to point out any statutory provision or regulation conferring jurisdiction upon the University to sit in appeal over an order of termination passed by the petitioner- College. In response, reliance has been placed upon Regulations 9.1, 9.2 and 10 of the Conditions of Service and Conduct of Teachers in Non-Government Affiliated Colleges (Chapter VIII(E)), which read as under:- “9.1. Subject to what is contained in Regulation Nos. 10, 11 and 12 the Governing Body of a non-Govt. College shall be entitled to determine the engagement of a permanent employee, for a sufficient cause, after giving him three months’ notice in writing or on payment of three months’ salary in lieu thereof. Provided that the Governing Body has the right to suspend an employee with immediate effect in case of gross misconduct or moral turpitude. In doing so he shall be served with a charge-sheet and informed in writing of the ground on which action is proposed DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.24 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20586-2023 3 to be taken. 9.2. A copy of the order of suspension together with a copy of the charge-sheet shall be sent within a week to the Registrar who may direct that the teacher shall not be placed under suspension. XXX XXX XXX 10. If a Principal/Teacher including the one appointed temporarily or on probation is dismissed or removed from service, the college shall send an intimation to the University, giving reasons, etc., within two weeks.” 5. This Court has carefully examined the hereinabove extracted Regulations. A plain reading thereof reveals that none of the provisions confers upon the University any appellate jurisdiction to examine the legality of an order of termination passed by the management of a non- Government affiliated college. The Regulations merely cast an obligation upon the College to intimate the University regarding disciplinary action taken against a teacher. 6. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 as well as learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submit that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, while reserving liberty in favour of respondent No.3 to assail the order of termination before the Educational Tribunal by availing the statutory remedy available under law. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that since respondent No.3 had been bona fide pursuing the proceedings before respondent No.1- University, which culminated in the passing of the impugned order, the said period may be directed to be taken into consideration while deciding application seeking condonation of delay before the Educational Tribunal. 8. Having regard to the fair submissions made by learned counsel DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.24 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20586-2023 4 for the parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The impugned order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No.1- University is hereby set aside; (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.3 to challenge the termination order dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure P-7) before the Educational Tribunal by availing the appropriate statutory remedy; (iii) In the event respondent No.3 institutes the appropriate proceedings before the Educational Tribunal, along with an application seeking condonation of delay, within one month from today, the Educational Tribunal shall consider such application sympathetically, keeping in view the fact that respondent No.3 had bona fide pursued her remedy before respondent No.1- University. (iv) The Educational Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the proceedings instituted by respondent No.3 preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of institution. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 20, 2026 JUDGE mamta/devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No DEVINDER YADAV 2026.07.24 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment