JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 6 and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 26th of February, 2010 passed by the Director of Education(Secondary), Lucknow, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 6 raised question of locus of the petitioner to file the writ petition on behalf of the Committee of Management being a principle of the College as well as also raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition in the light of provisions provided under Section 8 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. He submits that the order impugned has been passed in exercise of power provided under Section 7 of the Act, which is revisable by the State Govt. under Section 8 of the Act, accordingly he submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 4. In reply Mr. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate submits that apart from Petitioner no. 1 Mr. Brahm Deo Tripathi himself is aggrieved with the order passed by the Director of Education as the matter relates to appointment of authorised controller on the event of non payment of salary to the petitioner. So far as the locus of the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, since he is aggrieved with the payment of salary which is the roof cause of appointment of the authorised controller, the petition is well maintainable at least on behalf of petitioner no. 2. So far as the alternative remedy is concerned, he submits that the order impugned has been quashed without deciding any point on merit only in the light of the fact that by the date of appointment of authorised controller, the payment had already been made to the petitioners as well as other teachers there was no reason to continue the Authorised controller in the institution, whereas he still disputes the payment of salary to him. 5. Upon perusal of the record, I find that the real controversy involved in the matter is payment of salary for the petitioner. As per information of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5. Upon perusal of the record, I find that the real controversy involved in the matter is payment of salary for the petitioner. As per information of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6 the committee of management has sent the order of punishment for approval before the competent authority, but indisputedly till date no punishment has been awarded to the petitioner, therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitle for salary, and since the opposite party no. 6 has failed to pay the salary the Authorised Controller was appointed, which order has been set aside by the Director of Education. Thus the petitioner is an aggrieved person and writ petition on his behalf is well maintainable. Since in the light of Section 8 of the Act the order passed by the Director of Education is revisable, therefore, without entering into merit of the case, I hereby dispose of writ petition finally on the ground of alternative remedy by providing liberty to the petitioner to file revision within a week, which shall be decided within one month from the date of filing revision. On the matter of payment of salary this fact is still disputed as to whether the petitioner is entitled for full salary only or for subsistence allowance as according to opposite party no. 6 he is under suspension, therefore, I hereby provide that the Revisional Authority shall call upon the District Inspector of Schools concerned to verify this fact, and accordingly he shall pass an appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 6. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of finally.