Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.) These two special appeals have been filed against the same judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 4.3.2011 in writ petition No. 11286 of 2011, Committee of Management Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College Amroha J.P. Nagar through its manager Rehan Ali Naqvi Vs. State of U.P. by which order, the writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. Both the special appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. In Special Appeal No. 449 of 2011, Rehan Ali Naqvi is the appellant, who hereinafter referred to as 'writ petitioner'. In special Appeal No. 479 of 2011, Ali Makin Naqvi is the appellant, who was respondent in writ petition No. 11286 of 2011 and is hereinafter referred to as 'respondent'.
Brief facts giving rise to these two special appeals now need to be noted. Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College, Amroha, J.P. Nagar is a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is also receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The institution is a minority institution as recognised by the State Government on 22.4.1974. The institution is being managed by scheme of administration duly approved under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Committee of Management of the institution is being constituted in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. The Scheme of Administration was amended by extending the term of Committee of Management from three years to five year with the approval of Joint Director of Education dated 27.10.2009. The last recognised election of the Committee of Management was held on 4.11.2005, in which Rehan Ali Naqvi, the writ petitioner was elected as Manager. The election held on 4.11.2005 was approved by the Regional Level Committee by its order dated 31.3.2006 against which order writ petition No. 24566 of 2006 was filed by Tajdar Hussain and four others which writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.10.2009 of Hon'ble Single Judge. In the meantime, by order dated 15.1.2009, the District Inspector of Schools recognised Ali Makin Naqvi as Manager of the Committee of Management, treating that term of the Committee of Management of three years came to an end. The order dated 15.1.2009 was challenged by Rehan Ali Naqvi by filing writ petition No. 11590 of 2009, which was allowed by judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 28.10.2009 mentioned above.
The term of the Committee of Management elected on 4.11.2005 was going to expire on 4.11.2010. Rehan Ali Naqvi, the Manager issued agenda for holding the fresh elections on 31.10.2010. On 31.10.2010, the elections were held. On the basis of the elections dated 31.10.2010, the papers were submitted on 2.12.2010 by Ali Makin Naqvi as Manager claiming fresh elections and recognition. The District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 3.11.2010 recognised Ali Makin Naqvi as Manager. On 4.11.2010 on the basis of the elections dated 31.10.2010, papers were submitted by Rehan Ali Naqvi as Manager claiming to be elected as Manager in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Writ petition No. 69838 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner Rehan Ali Naqvi, challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3.11.2010. Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 1.12.2010 allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order of District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools was directed to re-examine the papers transmitted qua elections held by the rival parties and to take necessary decision thereon, as may be warranted in accordance with law as also in terms of the Government orders applicable. After the order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 1.12.2010, the District Inspector of Schools heard both the parties and after considering the respective representations and replies submitted by both the parties, upheld the elections claimed by Ali Makin Naqvi dated 31.10.2010, returning finding that valid members of the general body have participated in the elections as claimed by Ali Makin Naqvi. By order dated 11.2.2011, recognition was issued in favour of Ali Makin Naqvi and the claim of Rehan Ali Naqvi, the writ petitioner was rejected. Writ petition No. 11286 of 2011 was filed by Rehan Ali Naqvi challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11.2.2011, which writ petition has been disposed of by Hon'ble Single Judge dated 4.3.2011,taking the view that the order of District Inspector of Schools is Coram Non Judice. Hon'ble Single Judge held that the matter is to be dealt with by the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee was directed to decide the matter afresh without being influenced of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11.2.2011. Hon'ble Single Judge however, did not quash the order dated 11.2.2011 so that functioning of the institution be not jeopardised. However, certain restrictions on the management was imposed that the management shall not be entitled to take any decision pertaining to appointment or otherwise of the principal, teachers and other employees of the institution and should be obliged to seek permission from the District Inspector of Schools for spending any amount above Rs. 500/- during the period of the dispute before the Regional Joint Director of Education. Both the parties being aggrieved by the said order have come up in the appeal.
Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in special Appeal No. 449 of 2011 contended that the order of District Inspector of Schools being Coram Non Judice was liable to be set aside. He submits that there being two rival claimants regarding elections of the Committee of Management dated 31.10.2010, the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and he was obliged to make a reference to the Regional Level Committee in accordance with the Government orders dated 1912.2000 and 20.10.2008. He further submits that the order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 1.12.2010 by which this Court directed the District Inspector of Schools to re-examine the matter, cannot confer jurisdiction on the District Inspector of Schools which was not otherwise available to him and the District Inspector of Schools ought to have considered the question as to whether he was competent to decide the dispute or reference to Regional Level Committee was necessary. He submits that the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 11.2.2011 deserves to be set aside by Hon'ble Single Judge and Hon'ble Single Judge erred in not setting aside the said order. Sri Shashi Nandan assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Singh appearing for the respondents submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had full jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the view of Hon'ble Single Judge that the order of District Inspector of Schools is Coram Non Judice is erroneous. He submits that according to the Government order dated 20.10.2008, the District Inspector of Schools has been conferred with the jurisdiction to determine the claim of elections of Committee of Management and the order dated 11.2.2011 was well within his jurisdiction. He further submits that the writ petitioner did not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools, when the matter was being heard. He further submits that in writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3.11.2010, no ground was taken that District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute. He submits that in view of the directions of this Court dated 1.12.2010, the District Inspector of Schools has to determine the dispute and writ petitioner is not estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of District Inspector of Schools.
Sri Shashi Nandan, further contended that present was not a case for reference to the Regional Level Committee since the reference is contemplated when there is legal difficulty (oS/kkfud dfBukbZ). He submits that there was no legal difficulty (oS/kkfud dfBukbZ) in the present case which required reference to the Regional Level Committee. He further submits that the Joint Director of Education as well as Regional Level Committee are empowered to decide a dispute when the dispute is to be determined in accordance with Section 16-A(7) i.e. when the dispute is to be decided on the basis of effective control and in the present case, the dispute was to be determined regarding the validity of the respective elections hence, the dispute was beyond the purview of Section 16-A(7) and District Inspector of Schools was empowered to decide the dispute. He submits that judgment relied by Hon'ble Single Judge in Committee of Management, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Balika Higher Secondary School, Rasra, Ballia and another Vs. Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, (2005)2 UPLBEC 1220 has no application in the facts of the present case.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
The submissions of learned counsel for the parties centre around to the issue as to whether in the facts of the present case, the dispute of rival claims of management could have been decided by the District Inspector of Schools or it was necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to refer the dispute before the Regional Level Committee. Before we proceed to examine the above issue, it is relevant to note the relevant provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended from time to time as well as the Government orders issued by the State Government dated 19.12.2000 and 20.10.2008. The District Inspector of Schools under the statutory provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and under the U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 had to perform various statutory functions in collaboration with the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools had thus implied power to recognise and find out as to which is the valid management of the institution. The Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management & another Vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Meerut & another, 1978 AWC 124, held that it is the duty of the District Inspector of Schools to find out on administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the Committee of Management to enable him to perform the various administrative functions. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaswant Singh and another v. District Inspector of Schools and another, 1980 ALJ 124, held that neither U.P. Act of 1921 nor U.P. Act of 1971, makes a provision for deciding the dispute raised by rival Committees of Management with regard to the validity of elections. The Division Bench observed and recommended that some Tribunal may be constituted to decide such disputes. Taking into consideration the observation of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh (supra), Section 16-A was amended by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981 by inserting Sub-section (7). It is useful to quote section 16-A (7):
" (7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affair may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise:
Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing."
The power conferred by Section 16-A(7) to the Regional Deputy Director of Education came for consideration in several cases before this Court. It was held by Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Inter College v. Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi and others, 1982 UPLBEC 31, that forum now provided by Section 16-A(7) is only a substitute for that which were being decided by the District Inspector of Schools earlier. From the plain reading of Section 16-A(7), it is clear that Section 16-A(7) is attracted only "whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution". Thus, the precondition for attracting section 16-A (7) is dispute with respect to management of an institution. In cases where there was no dispute after the fresh election of the Committee of Management, District Inspector of Schools enjoyed full jurisdiction to recognise the Committee of Management and attest the signature of the Manager. However, it was held by several Division Benches of this Court that whenever a dispute about valid constitution of a Committee of Management is raised by rival committee of management, the District Inspector of Schools looses jurisdiction and in such cases, District Inspector of Schools should refer the matter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in view of section 16-A(7). Following was laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 by a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, S.M. National Inter College, Machhati, Ghazipur and another Vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and others, 1984 UPLBEC 610.
"4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 5-12-1983 recognising the new Committee of Management with Zuber Ahmad Siddiqui as Manager as the petitioner s had already raised a dispute before him through a representation dated 24-10-1983 mentioned above and under section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, it was only the Deputy Director of Education who was competent to resolve the controversy.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties are clearly of the opinion that the above contention has to be accepted. From the facts stated above it is obvious that a dispute had come into existence before the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioners had filed a representation dated 24-10-1983 clearly claiming that the new Committee of Management ought not to be recognised and that in law it is the petitioners who are continuing as the validly elected Committee of Management of the institution. The District Inspector of Schools was bound to refer the dispute under section 16-A(7) of the aforesaid Act to the Deputy Director of Education who alone was competent to determine such a dispute."
The same proposition was laid down in (1996) 4 UPLBEC 2586 (DB) Islamul Haq Ansari & others Vs. Committee of Management Dr. M.A. Ansari, Inter College, Yusufpur, Ghazipur and (1996) 4 UPLBEC 2410 Committee of Management, Sher Mohd. National Inter College, Machhti, Ghazipur & others Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and others. In the case of Islamul Haq Ansari (supra) the Division Bench has laid down following proposition in paragraph 10:
"It is not disputed that at present there are two rival committees of management. Both are claiming that the election had taken place on 24.12.1995. Learned Single Judge, in the writ petition filed by Sri Aizazul Haq, has observed that he can raise the dispute under section 16-A(7) of the Act. In case the matter is again considered by the District Inspector of School and the rival committee of management again places its claim before him, he will be under the duty to refer the matter to the Deputy Director of Education . The Deputy Director of Education can consider the validity of the election incidentally. The District Inspector of Schools had refused to grant recognition on the ground that the registration of the society has yet not been renewed but the learned Single Judge has taken the view that it was not necessary that so long the matter regarding renewal of the registration of the society is pending, the election held in accordance with the provisions of scheme of the Administration should not be recognised. The second question is with regard to membership and the procedure adopted for holding the election by the Committee of Management. Both the parties are putting forward their claim."
Further in Committee of Management, Sher Mohd. National Inter College, Machhti, Ghazipur & others Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and others (supra) same proposition was laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 which are quoted herein below:
" 4. There is no dearth of authority on the point that once there is a dispute raised,regarding existence of rival committees of management, it is the Regional D.D.E., who has, under section 16-A-7 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the sole jurisdiction to decide the same for granting recognition. The law in this regard has been vividly laid down in Committee of Management Shri Gandhi Vidyapith Inter College, Ghatampur and another Vs. D.I.O.S., Kanpur Dehat and another, (1989) 1U.P.LBEC.178; Shandar Husain V. Deputy Director of Education Hill Region Moradabad and others, 1995 All CJ 1244 and Committee of Management, Mobarakpur Inter College and another V. Regional Deputy Director of Education and others, 1995 A.W.C. 1823.
5. It would also be borne out in this case from the perusal of Annexure 11 to the writ petition which is a letter dated 8.7.1996 and Annexure Competent Authority.17 letter dated 19.7.1996 that a rival claim had been laid before the D.I.O.S. By the petitioner No. 2 well before 15.7.1996. Thus in these circumstances, the D.D.E., and not he had the jurisdiction to decide the question of recognition. Consequently, the impugned order of the D.I.O.S. Being without jurisdiction is unsustainable."
Then came a Government order dated 19.12.2000 for determining the issues of attestation of signature of management and for determining management dispute a regional Committee was constituted headed by Regional Joint Director of Education. It is useful to quote the relevant portion of the Government order dated 19.12.2000:
"'kklu Lrj ij fujUrj ;g f'kdk;rsa izkIr gks jgh gSa fd ek/;fed f'k{kk vf/kfu;e] 1921 ,oa osru forj.k vf/kfu;e] 1971 }kjk izkIr vf/kdkjksa dk dfri; vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk nq:i;ksx fd;k tk jgk gS A blfy, e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd dh v/;{krk esa ,d lfefr dk xBu fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa e.Myh; mi&f'k{kk funs'kd rFkk lacaf/kr tuin ds ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd lnL; gksaxs A ;g lfefr fuEufyf[kr izdj.kksa ij fopkj djsxh % 1& izcU/kdksa ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr djuk A 2& osru forj.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr lkf/kdkj fu;a=d dh fu;qfDr A 3& leLr izdkj ds izcU/kdh; fookn A 4& f'k{kdksa ds ofj"Brk laca/kh fookn A osru vuqeU;rk ls lacaf/kr leLr izdj.k U;k;ky;h izdj.kksa dks NksMdj A ;g lfefr mDr izdj.kksa dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr viuh laLrqfr ml vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr djsxh] tks vf/kfu;eksa ds vUrxZr bu dk;ksZ dks djus ds fy, vf/kd`r gS A bl lfefr dh ekg esa nks ckj fu;fer :i ls cSBdsa vk;ksftr gksaxh A U;k;ky;h izdj.kksa ij mDr lfefr viuh laLrqfr f'k{kk funs'kd dks izsf"kr djsxh] ftudh vk[;k ,oa laLrqfr izkIr gksus ij 'kklu }kjk dk;Zokgh gsrq funsZ'k fn;k tk;sxk A "
From the above Government orders, it is clear that the committee was constituted to examine the above matters and submit a recommendation to the authority competent under the Act. Another Government order which was thereafter issued is Government order dated 20.10.2008, which Government order provided procedure for attestation of signature of newly elected Committee of Management. It is useful to quote the aforesaid Government order to clearly understand the purpose and object of issuing such Government order, which is to the following effect:
" fo"k; %& izns'k ds v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa dh izca/kd lfefr;ksa ds pquko ds mijkUr uo&fuokZfpr izcU/kd ds gLrk{kj izek.ku dh O;oLFkk A egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d izdj.k esa 'kklu ds laKku esa ;g rF; vk;k gS fd e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd dh v/;{krk esa xfBr e.Myh; lfefr }kjk izcU/kdksa ds gLrk{kj dks izekf.kr djus ds lEcU/k esa dfri; dkj.kksa ls foyEc fd;s tkus ls izcU/k lfefr ds oS/kkfud pquko ds mijkUr Hkh yEch vof/k rd izcU/kdksa ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr ugha gks ik jgs gSa] ftlls izcU/k lfefr ds fuoZkpu dk mn~ns'; iwjk ugha gks ik jgk gS A lEizfr ek/;fed f'k{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk& 16 d (7) esa izcU/k lfefr ds fookn dh fLFkfr esa tWkpksijkUr izcU/k lfefr dks ekU;rk fn;s tkus dk vf/kdkj e.Myh; lfefr dks fn;k x;k gS A mDr e.Myh; lfefr esa e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd] v/;{k rFkk e.Myh; mi f'k{kk funs'kd o ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd lnL; gksrs gSa A izkjfEHkd Lrj ij gLrk{kj izekf.kr djus ds fu.kZ; esa lfEefyr gksus ij iqu% vihy fd;s tkus dh n'kk esa mlh vf/kdkjh }kjk ekU;rk iznku djus ds vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx djus ls uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa dk mYya?ku gksrk gSA of.kZr fLFkfr esa mDr [email protected]/k ds fuokj.kkFkZ iz'uxr O;oLFkk esa iwoZ izkfo/kkfur O;oLFkk dks vfrdzfer djrs gq;s lE;d fopkjksijkUr v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa dh izcU/k lfefr;ksa ds oS/kkfud pquko ds mijkUr fuoZkfpr izcU/kd ds gLrk{kj izek.ku ds lEcU/k esa fuEukuqlkj izkfo/kku fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS %& 1& izcU/k lfefr ds pquko ds mijkUr izcU/kd ds gLrk{kj izek.ku dh dk;Zokgh ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd }kjk izR;sd n'kk esa 02 lIrkg ds Hkhrj lqfuf'pr dj yh tk;sxh A 2& ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dks gLrk{kj izekf.kr djus esa ;fn dksbZ oS/kkfud dfBukbZ vkrh gS rks os mDr fufnZ"V le; lhek ds Hkhrj gh izdj.k dks e.Myh; lfefr dks lUnfHkZr djsaxs ftl ij e.Myh; lfefr izR;sd n'kk esa ,d ekg ds Hkhrj viuk fu.kZ; nsus ds fy, ck/; gksxh A Hkonh;] v:.k dqekj feJk] izeq[k lfpo A "
While issuing the above Government order, the Government noticed that after valid election of the Committee of Management, for long period signature of Manager remain unattested which frustrat the purpose of election. By Government order it was provided that the District Inspector of Schools shall do the attestation of signature within two weeks from the elections and in case, if there is any legal difficulty (oS/kkfud dfBukbZ) then within the same period the matter is to be referred to the Regional Committee which is required to decide the matter within one month. The submission which has been pressed by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents is that the word "legal difficulty (oS/kkfud dfBukbZ)" has to be given strict interpretation i.e. if there is any legal impediment for example any court order restrains the District Inspector of Schools to recognise or some other similar situation.
The submissions of learned counsel for the writ petitioner is otherwise. He submits that the word legal difficulty (oS/kkfud dfBukbZ) has to be interpreted to mean that the District Inspector of Schools shall attest the signature when there is no dispute of the management and in event of any dispute of the management, the matter has to be referred to the Regional Committee as contemplated by the Government orders itself. He submits that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to determine a rival dispute and the same is also a legal difficulty.
The Government orders dated 19.12.2000 as well as 20.10.2008 have to be interpreted in a manner so that it may effectuate the statutory scheme as laid down in Section 16-A (7). The Government orders cannot be read in the manner to dilute the statutory scheme. Section 16-A (7) as noticed above, contemplates that whenever there is a dispute of management, it is the Regional Joint Director of Education, who is to determine the dispute. In case, the Government order dated 20.10.2008 is interpreted to mean that when ever there is a dispute of management, still the District Inspector of Schools has to determine the dispute and no reference be made, the said interpretation runs contrary to the scheme. The Government order dated 20.10.2008 could also not mean that first District Inspector of Schools shall determine the dispute and thereafter make a reference or after the dispute is determined by the District Inspector of Schools an appeal may be made to the Regional Committee. The Government order dated 20.10.2008 has to be interpreted to mean that the District Inspector of Schools shall attest the signature when there is no such dispute which may require reference to Regional Committee. In the present case after setting aside the order dated 3.11.2010, the matter was sent to the District Inspector of Schools to re-examine the rival claims of the parties and when two rival claims on the basis of the elections dated 31.10.2010 were there, the appropriate course open for him was to make reference to the Regional Committee instead of himself embarking upon to decide the dispute. Much emphasis has been laid down by learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the order dated 1.12.2010, passed by this Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction. It is relevant to note the directions issued by this Court on 1.12.2010 in writ petition No. 69838 of 2010. The operative portion of the order dated 1.12.2010 is to the following effect:
" Let the District Inspector of Schools, J. P. Nagar re-examine the paper transmitted qua elections held by the rival parties and to take necessary decision thereon, as may be warranted in accordance with law as also in terms of the Government Order applicable. The District Inspector of Schools shall pass a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Till then no money shall be withdrawn from the account of the institution without the leave of the District Inspector of Schools in writing.
Writ petition is allowed subject to the observation made. "
The above directions clearly contemplate examination of papers of the rival parties and to take necessary decision thereof as may be warranted in accordance with law as also in terms of the Government order applicable. Thus, the District Inspector of Schools was to enter into the question as to whether according to the Government orders and the law he is empowered to determine the dispute. The District Inspector of Schools without entering into the said question, proceeded to decide the dispute. The order of this Court dated 1.12.2010 did not determine the question as to whether the District Inspector of Schools in the facts of the present case shall have jurisdiction to determine the dispute rather the the District Inspector of Schools was directed to re-examine the matter in accordance with law and Government orders applicable. The District Inspector of Schools having not adverted to the above question, decided the matter himself hence, the order of District Inspector of Schools cannot be said to be in accordance with law. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is clear that the dispute which was raised before the District Inspector of Schools was a dispute between two rival committees of management, which fell in the ambit of section 16-A(7) and was to be placed before the Regional Level Committee for examination.
The judgment in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Balika Higher Secondary School, Rasra, Ballia and another Vs. Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region (supra) which has been relied by Hon'ble Single Judge do support the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The District Inspector of Schools in the said case has attested the signature of the Manager. Hon'ble Single Judge took the view that in view of the Government order dated 19.12.2000, the election was to be recognised by the Regional Committee. The said judgment was delivered before the Government order dated 20.10.2008 was issued. It is relevant to note that judgment was given before issuance of the Government order dated 20.10.2008 and judgment was in accordance with law as prevalent at the relevant time. In the said case also this Court had directed District Inspector of Schools to take a decision. Hon'ble Single Judge took the view that if the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute, he was under obligation to refer the matter to the competent authority under law and the order of the Court cannot be construed to have confer jurisdiction on the District Inspector of Schools not vested in him. Following was laid down in paragraph 8:
"8. Even otherwise it is to be noticed that this Court on 4.3.2003 while deciding the Writ Petition No. 8989 of 2003 had required the District Inspector of Schools to act in accordance with law and if necessary, to forward the relevant papers before the competent authority within two months. Even if it is accepted that the said order of this Court was not communicated to the District Inspector of Schools yet the same is to be considered by this Court while deciding the issue at hand. This Court vide order dated 4.3.2003 required the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation only and. If the District Inspector, of Schools had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute pertaining to the validity of the elections he was under legal obligation to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner referring the issue of legality of the elections to the competent authority under law. It may be reiterated that the Hon'ble Supreme and this Court has repeatedly held that orders of the Court cannot confer a jurisdiction not vested in an authority. In the opinion of the Court the orders passed by this Court directing the authorities concerned to decide the representation or the claim set up by the parties necessarily implies that the authority concerned is to act in accordance with law and if the authority concerned has no jurisdiction under law to decide the issue raised it must pass an order to that effect supported by reasons on the representation of the party concerned instead of venturing to decide the issue on the basis of assumed jurisdiction."
One more submission of learned counsel for the respondents needs to be considered. It is contended that District Inspector of Schools according to the Government order dated 20.10.2008, is entitled to determine the validity of the elections, whereas the Regional Committee and the Joint Director of Education has to determine the dispute on the basis of the effective control. Hence, the District Inspector of Schools was well within his jurisdiction to proceed with the determination of the validity of the elections. In this context, it is relevant to refer the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in (2005) 1 UPLBEC 85 Committee Of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur Region And Anr. vs Deputy Director Of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur And Ors. Full Bench of this Court considered several questions including the question "Whether the Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the Act can go into the question of validity of the elections." The Full Bench after considering the earlier decisions of this court, laid down that the Deputy Director of Education, while determining the dispute under section 16-A(7) has also to go into the validity of the elections incidentally, and to find out whether the persons claiming control have been validly elected. Following was laid down in paragraphs 31 and 32.
" 31. We find that there may be a variety of circumstances, in which the claims are raised before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. It is also true that the enquiry held by him is summary in nature and that his decision is subject to the directions of the Court of competent jurisdiction. We, however, cannot permit a situation where a group of persons may take over the control over the funds, administration and income of its properties, without a claim based on valid elections. The State Government spends a large amount of money towards grants to the educational institutions and thus there are chances of unauthorised persons taking over the control over the institution by illegality, deceit and/or force. Such persons, in our opinion, shall not be allowed to deal with the Government funds. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, therefore, in holding the enquiry about the actual control of the affairs under Section 16-A(7) is hence required to go into the validity of the elections incidentally, and to find out whether the persons claiming control have been validly elected.
32. The cases, decided by this Court cited above have consistently taken a view that in deciding the question of actual control, the validity of the elections of the claimant is an important factor."
In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Regional Committee or Joint Director of Education cannot inter into validity of the elections and it is the District Inspector of Schools who is to enter into validity of the elections, is misconceived and rejected. Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly taken the view that the dispute in the present case was required to be referred to the Regional Committee for consideration and the District Inspector of Schools erred in himself proceeding with deciding the dispute. The direction of the Hon'ble Single Judge that the matter be dealt with by the Regional Committee, is fully justified and needs no interference in this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Hon'ble Single Judge ought to have quashed the order dated 11.2.2011 and on the other side learned counsel for the respondents submitted that restrictions which have been imposed on the functioning of the Committee of Management of the respondents as noted above, were unjustified and when the order was not quashed, the committee of respondent no. 5 should have been allowed to function without any restrictions. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. We find that the Hon'ble Single Judge has not quashed the order so as not to jeopardise the functioning of the institution in its entirety at that stage. The restrictions which have been imposed against the Committee of Management of respondent no. 5, were in the interest of the institution. When the recognition granted to the respondent no. 5 by the District Inspector of Schools were held not to be valid and the matter was remanded to the Regional Committee for a decision, it was in the interest of the parties to put restrictions. Substantial justice has been done by the Hon'ble Single Judge in not quashing the order so as to continue the status-quo regarding functioning of the management and to save the institution from running without management and side by side by putting valid restrictions on the management so that it may not misuse its limited recognition till the dispute is decided. The above directions of Hon'ble Single Judge have done substantial justice and needs no interference in appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed without there being any order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.5.2011 LA/-