Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.9109 of 2008 (Tika Ram Education Society (Regd), Sonepat v. State of Haryana and others) and 7349 of 2008 (Krishna Malik v. State of Haryana and others). 2. Tika Ram Education Society has filed Civil Writ Petition No.9109 of 2008 to challenge order dated .10.3.2008, whereby Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, was directed to take charge of the administration of the management of the School, besides praying for direction to the respondents not to interfere illegally into the affairs of the management of the School. Civil Writ Petition No.7349 of 2008, on the other hand, is filed by Smt.Krishna Malik seeking quashing of order of her suspension on the ground that it was not passed by the competent authority i.e. respondent No.4, Tika Ram Education Society. She also prayed for direction for the official respondents to act on the ground that they were failing to exercise their power under Rule 3 of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 (amended) and that she should be permitted to join duties and do her job. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of through this common order. 3. Petitioner- Tika Ram Education Society is running the educational Institution and would make reference to the earlier action taken by the official respondents to take over the management of the School on the intervention of the local M.L.A. of the area. This action was challenged by filing Civil Writ Petition No.13865 of 2006, which was disposed of on 29.3.2007 as the tenure of the Management Committee had come to an end. Directions were also issued to the State to conduct the election of the Managing Committee within a period of three months. The election was accordingly got conducted and Sh.Om Parkash Dahiya was elected as President. Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, thereafter handed over the charge of the Institution to the duly elected new management. Subsequently, the constitution of the governing body was sent to the M.D.University for approval. The newly elected Management Committee, thus, started running the affairs of the Institution. 4. As required under Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and Haryana School Education Rules, 2003, the petitioner-Society constituted three separate governing bodies for three Schools run by the Society. Constitution of these governing bodies of the Schools were sent to respondent No.2 for approval but no intimation regarding approval/non-approval was given. 4. As required under Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and Haryana School Education Rules, 2003, the petitioner-Society constituted three separate governing bodies for three Schools run by the Society. Constitution of these governing bodies of the Schools were sent to respondent No.2 for approval but no intimation regarding approval/non-approval was given. On 10.3.2008, respondent No.2 passed an order that Managing Committee as approved by the M.D.University for the College could not be considered the Managing Committee of the School without the approval of the Department and accordingly could not competently suspend Smt.Krishna Malik, Principal, Tika Ram Girls Secondary School, Sonepat. Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, was again directed to take charge of the School-management. This order was accordingly challenged through Civil Writ Petition No.9109 of 2008. 5. In response to notice of motion, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is pointed out that as per the Haryana School Education Rules, amended in the year 2007, if the authorities are running more than one Institution, then it has to constitute separate Managing Committee for each school and have to seek approval of the same from Director General, School Education (respondent No.2). The Committee is considered legal only upon the grant of approval, which is mandatory. Since the petitioner had failed to comply with the statutory rules, the impugned order was passed. It is stated that the holding of election pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, can not be a reason for not complying with the requirement of seeking approval under the Rules. When this fact came to the notice of the answering respondents, the impugned order was passed. 6. Besides, it is pointed out that the petitioner-Society through its Secretary has filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Sonepat, against the letter dated 22.11.2007 for interfering with the order of suspension of the Principal but no interim relief was granted by the Civil Court. In the said civil suit, no reference was made to letter dated 20.7.2007, which was stated to have been sent to the Commissioner for approval of the Managing Committee. This letter has now been annexed with the writ petition and it is accordingly urged that the same is forged and manipulated document only to mislead this Court. In the said civil suit, no reference was made to letter dated 20.7.2007, which was stated to have been sent to the Commissioner for approval of the Managing Committee. This letter has now been annexed with the writ petition and it is accordingly urged that the same is forged and manipulated document only to mislead this Court. The fact of filing civil suit is not disclosed by the petitioner and so also that no interim relief was granted to the petitioner in the said civil suit. Though, challenge in the civil suit may not be to the order impugned in the present writ petition, but the issue raised in this writ petition and the civil suit relates to the competence of the management to function and, thus, in no manner different than the relief claimed in the civil suit. Even if the impugned order dated 10.3.2008 was passed subsequently, the petitioner could have very well challenged the said order before the Civil Court also either by amending the suit or otherwise. 7. The petitioner was expected to disclose this fact that it had already filed a civil suit against the letter issued by the respondents on 22.11.2007 where the issues raised in the present writ petition is primarily the same and its action in not disclosing this fact can be termed as an attempt to mislead the Court. The petitioner can not be permitted to pursue two separate remedies where the challenge in essence remain the same. The Civil Court apparently is the appropriate Forum and an efficacious alternative remedy, which was invoked but without disclosing this fact, the present writ petition was filed. 8. Civil Writ Petition No.9109 of 2008 deserves to be dismissed on this very short ground and it is so ordered. The petitioner would be at liberty to make prayer for any claim in regard to the impugned action in the civil suit, which it has filed, in case, there is still any cause left with the petitioner. 9. In view of the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.9109 of 2008, no further order needs to be passed in Civil Writ Petition No.7349 of 2008.