( 1 ) 1. The prayer of the petitioners is to quash the orders dated 7. 1. 91 and 8. 1. 91 passed by the Munsif City , Gorakhpur (respondent no. 2 ) as contained in Annexure 20 and 21 in misc. case no. 421 of 1990 arising out of Original Suit No. 2728 of 1989. ( 2 ) IT appears that respondent No. 3, herein , filed the suit in question for grant of a decree of permanent injunction on his favour and against the defendants and for directing defendant No. 2 to 4 pay dearness Allowance to him as well as to other part -time lecturers of lawdepartment of Gorakhpur University by Implementing resolution no. 2 dated April 26, 1987 passed by the Executive committee of defendant no. 2. ( 3 ) MR. Dilip Gupta , the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that in view of the provisions of section 69 of the State Universities act no such suit could be maintainable and any order passed therein shall be wholly without jurisdiction and thus this writ petition be allowed. ( 4 ) SECTION 69 of the Act aforementioned reads thus:- "bar of suit - no. suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government or the Director of education (Higher Education) or the Deputy Director (as defined in Section 60-A ) or the authorisedcontroller or the university or any officer authority or body there of in respect of any thing of anything done or purported or intended to be done in pursuance of the act or the rules or the statutes or the ordinance made thereunder. " From a bare perusal of the aforementioned Section 69 of the universities Act it is crystal clear that no suit can be instituted in respect of anything done or purported or intended to be done pursuant to the to the Act or the rules or the Statutes or the ordinance made thereunder. Resolution No. 2 in question was apparently passed under the aforementioned statutory provision. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY the suit filed for implementation of resolution NO. 2 was not maintainable and impugned orders passed are without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) IN the results the impugned orders are quashed and this writ petition is allowed but since Respondent No. 3 has not appeared before us to contest it we make no order as to cost. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY the suit filed for implementation of resolution NO. 2 was not maintainable and impugned orders passed are without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) IN the results the impugned orders are quashed and this writ petition is allowed but since Respondent No. 3 has not appeared before us to contest it we make no order as to cost. Petition Allowed. .