An application has been moved by one Shri Ashutosh Jaiswal through Shri Hari Prakash Yadav, Advocate seeking his impleadment as opposite party no.7 in the writ petition. The said application has been moved by the applicant stating therein that he is the member of the society running Amar Gandhi Pustakalaya Junior High Schools, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar. He has also pointed out in the said application, various alleged discrepancies and irregularities in running the institution. On the strength of the said application, he submits that he is a necessary party.
The petitioner no.1 is the Committee of Management, which in the present writ petition, is being represented through its Manager, Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, who has been arrayed as petitioner no.2.
Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 16.09.2016, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar directing therein that the arrangement of single hand operation of the salary account of the institution shall not be cancelled till the matter/dispute relating to management of the institution is finally decided by this Court. The applicant, admittedly, is not a member of the Committee of Management of the institution. He has only stated in the application is that he is a member of the General Body of the society. The applicant is also not a party in the dispute/matter relating to management of the institution is said to be pending consideration before this Court, namely, Writ Petition Nos.1081 (M/S) of 2011 and 1244 (M/S) of 2011. He, thus, is not a contestant so far as the management of the institution is concerned. The matter of single hand operation of the salary account concerns only the management of the institution and not any individual member of the General Body of the society managing the institution.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find that the applicant is a necessary party in this petition. He is not a necessary party also for the reason that the proceedings in this case can proceed even in his absence and none of his rights are going to be affected with the decision which may be taken by the Court in this case.
Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected.
Notice of this petition on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Shri Neeraj Chaurasia has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5.
The impugned order appears to have been passed on some application preferred by one Shri Ram Asrey Yadav, who has been arrayed as respondent no.6, however, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the application was moved by respondent no.6 at a time when he was placed under suspension and now that suspension has been revoked and he is being paid his salary, it would not be necessary to issue notice to him.
Shri Chaurasia has stated that since the matter at hand requires consideration and decision by this Court only on legal issues, as such it may not be necessary for the District Education Officer to file counter affidavit. He has further stated that he has complete telephonic instructions in the matter and he may advance his submission on the basis of the said instructions.
In the aforesaid circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be serve by inviting counter affidavit to be filed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar.
The Court, thus, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, proceeds to decide the matter finally.
The impugned order dated 16.09.2016 has been passed by the District Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar in the background of certain facts, which are as follows.
Certain teachers of the institution had filed Writ Petition No.6299 (S/S) of 2011 praying therein that the respondents therein be directed to release the salary of the Assistant Teachers in the institution with effect from February, 2011. The Court while disposing of the said writ petition vide its judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 directed the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar to ensure payment of salary to the petitioners therein and other employees along with arrears within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The operative portion of the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6299 (S/S) of 2011 is extracted herein below:
"As petitioners are working as Assistant Teachers in the School, the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar is hereby directed to ensure payment of salary of petitioners and other employees along with arrears within period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
It appears that even after passing of the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2011, payment of salary to the teachers and other staff of the institution in question could not be ensured by the District Basic Education Officer, who under compelling circumstances passed an order on 26.03.2012 under the relevant provisions of Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 (herein after referred to as ''the Act, 1978') on 26.03.2012 directing therein that till the members of the society managing the institution, namely, Amar Gandhi Pustkalaya Balika Inter College, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar are registered, the salary account of the institution shall be operated single handedly by the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar. The order dated 26.03.2012, passed by the District Basic Education Officer provided that as soon as two conditions, namely, the registration of the members of the society and emergence of a duly elected/appointed Manager of the institution are fulfilled, the order of single hand operation of the salary account shall automatically come to an end. It may further be pointed out that a contempt petition bearing no.663 of 2012 was filed alleging therein non-compliance of the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6299 (S/S) of 2011. The said contempt petition was disposed of on 09.04.2012 by this Court after the order dated 26.03.2012 was passed by the District Basic Education Officer directing single hand operation of the salary account.
Hon'ble Contempt Judge while disposing of the contempt petition vide order dated 09.04.2012 had noted in the said order that there appears to be some dispute relating to the management. The order dated 09.04.2012 was passed in the presence of the then District Basic Education Officer. The order dated 09.04.2012 passed by Hon'ble Contempt Judge further reveals that on the said date the District Basic Education Officer presented a cheque to the Court prepared in favour of Manager but the Court noted that there is a dispute between two rival managers and returned the original cheque to the District Basic Education Officer in the Court itself. Taking into account all the relevant factors and noticing the conflict amongst two rival Managers causing difficulty in ensuring payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff, Hon'ble Contempt Judge vide his order dated 09.04.2012 directed the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar to continue with the single hand operation of the salary account and to make payment of salary directly to the teachers every month as per law. The order further provided that the said arrangement shall continue till disposal of the writ petition pertaining to the dispute of genuine Manager of the college in question. The relevant extract of the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No.663 of 2012 is quoted herein below:
"Today, when the case was called, Sri Bagesh Shukla stated that the present management headed by Sri Ratan Lal Agrahari is the genuine manager, so the cheque must be given to him. On the other hand, Sri Uma Kant Verma, Advocate, submits that his client Sri Kanhaiya Lal is the genuine manager and the cheque must be given to his client.
At the same time, Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the teachers submits that there is a dispute between the two managers and the teachers are not getting the salary since Feb.2011.
Sri Rakesh Kumar, B.S.A. is present in person. Through learned standing counsel, he submits that originally, the cheque was prepared in the name of the manager, but now a days single operation has been carried out pertaining to the college as there is a dispute between the two managers. The original cheque issued has been returned to the B.S.A. in the Court.
After hearing all the parties, I direct the B.S.A. Ambedkar Nagar to continue with the single operation of the account and make payment directly to the teachers concerned every month as per law by operating single account. This arrangement will continue till the dispose of the writ petition pertaining to the dispute of genuine Manager of the College in question.
In view of above, the contempt petition is disposed of. "
In the light of the aforesaid order dated 09.04.2012 single hand operation of the salary account of the institution continued till 30.06.2016 when the order dated 26.03.2012 was cancelled and the Manager of the institution was given all the financial powers. The said order dated 30.06.2016 appears to have passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, which has been annexed as annexure no.14 to the writ petition.
Thereafter it appears that one Shri Ram Asrey Yadav vide his letters dated 26.07.2016 and 05.08.2016 moved an application to the District Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar stating therein that in view of the order dated 09.04.2012 since the writ petition where the dispute relating to Manager of the college is pending, has not been decided, hence, the order dated 30.06.2016 could not have been passed by the Finance and Accounts Officer cancelling the order dated 26.03.2012. The District Education Officer accordingly appears to have considered the entire matter and has passed the impugned order on 16.09.2016 reciting therein that the petitioner no.2-Kanhaiya Lal Gupta had moved an application/representation on 21.06.2016 praying therein that the arrangement of single hand operation of the salary account be cancelled as the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar has attested his signatures as the Manager. It has further been recited by the District Basic Education Officer in the impugned order that the said representation/application was preferred by the petitioner no.2 concealing certain facts as the order dated 09.04.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No.663 of 2012 is still operating and further that the dispute relating to management is pending consideration before this Court. The District Basic Education Officer has, thus, stated in the impugned order dated 16.09.2016 that in such a situation the order dated 30.06.2016 needs to be cancelled in compliance of the order dated 09.04.2012, passed by this Court in the aforementioned contempt petition.
It is in the aforesaid background of the facts that the impugned order has been passed.
Impeaching the impugned order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sharad Pathak has vehemently argued that the said order is completely unlawful and in support of his submissions he has urged three grounds.
The first ground pressed by Shri Pathak is that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which amounts to non-adherence of principles of natural justice.
The second ground of attack as canvassed by Shri Pathak is that an order by the District Education Officer providing therein single hand operation of the salary account for payment of salary to the teachers and other non-teaching staff of an institution can be passed under section 5 of the Act, 1978 only in case the District Basic Education Officer gives a finding that some difficulty has arisen in disbursement of salaries and since in this case while passing the impugned order no such finding has been arrived at by the District Basic Education Officer hence, the impugned order is illegal being in violation of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1978.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order has allegedly been passed for ensuring compliance of the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by Hon'ble Contempt Judge in Contempt Petition No.663 of 2012 and since that operation of the order dated 09.04.2012 whereby the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar was directed to continue single hand operation of the salary account is completely without jurisdiction and void hence, on the strength of the said order of this Court, the impugned order could not have been passed. He has, thus, submitted that the defence being taken by the District Basic Education Officer for protecting the order dated 16.09.2016 on the basis of the order dated 09.04.2012, passed by this Court, is not available to him for the reason that an order passed without jurisdiction by any Court is non est and has thus to be ignored.
Since third ground, as noted above, taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners goes to the root of the issue in this case, the Court proceeds to consider the same first.
The Contempt Petition No.663 of 2012 was filed alleging therein non-compliance of the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6299 (S/S) of 2011, whereby the District Basic Education Officer was directed to ensure payment of salary to the Assistant Teachers and other employees of the institution along with arrears within one month. It appears that within the time stipulated in the order dated 14.12.2011 since payment of salary of the teachers and non teaching staff could not be ensured, the District Education Officer passed the order on 26.03.2012 directing therein single hand operation of the salary account of the institution concerned.
At this juncture, it may be noticed that under the scheme for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of a Junior High School as sanctioned by the Act, 1978, payment is made on the bill coupled with certain other certifications and informations to be submitted by the Management of institution to the office of District Basic Education Officer. It is only on the certification by the Management in respect of working of teaching and non-teaching staff and presentation of salary bills that the amount equivalent to the salary claimed is transferred in the salary account by the District Basic Education Officer. In absence of bills being presented by the Management, under the scheme of 1978 Act, payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff can not be ensured unless an arrangement for operating the salary account single handedly is made by the District Basic Education Officer as envisaged under the payment of Salary Act, 1978.
The District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar passed the order on 26.03.2012 i.e. after a period of three months from the date this Court had directed him to ensure payment of salary by means of the order dated 14.12.2011, that too, within a period of one month. It is, thus, clear that it is only in compelling circumstances and also with a view to ensure compliance of the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by this Court that the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar had passed the orders on 26.03.2012. It is also interesting to notice that even after the said order dated 26.03.2012 payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff could not be ensured and the circumstances, which emerged, were thus considered by Hon'ble Contempt Judge while passing the order dated 09.04.2012, wherein it has been observed that though Basic Education Officer had brought with him the cheque of the salary amount, however, the same was returned to the Basic Education Officer in the Court in view of the fact that the Court still found existence of a dispute between two rival managers of the institution. It is in the aforesaid background that the order dated 09.04.2012 was passed by Hon'ble Contempt Judge directing the Basic Education Officer to continue with the single operation of the salary account.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that under contempt jurisdiction such a positive direction or a mandate could not have been issued by Hon'ble Contempt Judge which was issued in the order dated 09.04.2012 and any such mandate or direction issued by Hon'ble Contempt Judge in exercise of his authority and power either under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act will be without jurisdiction and hence, non est. His submission is that such an order is coram non judice and as such the same is not binding on the parties. In the background of the aforesaid submissions, it has thus, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the defence being taken by the Basic Education Officer to defend to the order dated 16.09.2016 based on the order dated 09.04.2012, is not available to him.
In support of his submissions, Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, has heavily relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul and another vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly and others, reported in [(2002) 5 SCC 352]. In the said case, certain individuals had preferred a claim for being granted the benefit of some government order and the Court considering their claim directed that the benefit of the said Government Order dated 31.03.1984 be provided to them. A contempt petition was filed before the High Court for non-compliance of the order and Hon'ble Contempt Judge passed an order for preparation of a common gradations list of certain categories of employees, though no such direction was issued in the petition by the Writ Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court thus, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the said case, expressed its view that in contempt jurisdiction no such positive mandatory direction could be issued and any such direction issued would be outside the jurisdiction of the Contempt Judge. The relevant extract of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul (supra) as is available in para 11, is quoted herein below:
"11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. Since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the juidiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of courts is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes leveled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts."
It is to be noticeable that Hon'ble Supreme Court while laying down the law that in contempt jurisdiction no positive mandatory direction can be issued outside the scope of the order which is being alleged to have been violated by the authorities, has elaborately observed therein that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold majesty and dignity of the courts of law. It has further been observed that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced for the purposes of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that it is to be kept in mind that the Court while exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties and thus, Contempt Court is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged.
The ratio of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul (supra) is not being disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and in my opinion as well, it can not be disputed. It is not in dispute that the Contempt Court cannot grant any substantive relief or issue any direction in respect of the same without proper adjudication of the dispute. If any such mandatory direction is issued, which is outside the scope of the order or judgment which is said to have been violated, such a direction would be without jurisdiction and would not be binding.
Having observed as above, what needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case is as to whether the direction issued by the Hon'ble Contempt Judge in the order dated 09.04.2012 directing the Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar to continue with single hand operation of the salary account can be termed to be a direction without jurisdiction adjudicating upon an issue or it would be construed only to be a direction issued in the aid of the High Court for ensuring compliance of its order dated 14.12.2011. The circumstances in which the order dated 09.04.2012 was passed by the Hon'ble Contempt Judge have been noticed in the said order itself. At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that even after passing of the order on 26.03.2012 directing therein single hand operation of the salary account, payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff could not be ensured and in fact a dispute arose during the Court proceedings before Hon'ble Contempt Judge on 09.04.2012 when the cheque as presented by the Basic Education Officer was returned back to him noticing the dispute between two Managers. In such a situation, I am of the considered opinion that the direction issued by Hon'ble Contempt Judge for continuance of the single hand operation of the salary account in the order dated 09.04.2012 was not a direction issued by the Court on its own; rather it was issued keeping in view the fact that the order of single hand operation of the salary account was already passed before 09.04.2012 by the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar himself on 26.03.2012 itself. The direction issued by the Hon'ble Contempt Judge in his order dated 09.04.2012 has thus, to be construed as continuance of the arrangement already made by the District Basic Education Officer vide his order dated 26.03.2012 and it should not be construed as a fresh direction for making any fresh arrangement for single hand operation of the salary account.
It may also be noticed that on 09.04.2012 when the order was passed by Hon'ble Contempt Judge atleast two writ petitions, namely, writ petition nos.1081 (M/S) of 2011 and 1244 (M/S) of 2011 were pending which in fact are still pending, where substantively the issue raised is in respect of the dispute concerning management of the institution. Keeping in view pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, it was only observed by the Contempt Judge in his order dated 09.04.2012 that single hand operation already made by the District Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar would continue till disposal of the writ petitions pertaining to the dispute of genuine Manager of the college. Such a direction, in my opinion, cannot be construed or constituted as a fresh direction and hence, would not fall in the category of any mandatory direction outside the scope of the jurisdiction available before Hon'ble Contempt Judge for ensuring compliance of the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6299 (S/S) of 2011.
At this juncture, the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Aligarh Municipal Board and others vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others, reported in [(AIR 1970 SC 1767)] are relevant to be noticed. In said case, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that contempt proceeding against a person who has failed to comply with the Court's order serves two purposes, namely, (1) vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct and (2) coercion to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him. The observations so made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Aligarh Municipal Board (supra) are extracted herein below:-
"Contempt proceeding against a person who has failed to comply with the Court's order serves a dual purpose:
1. vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct and
2. coercion to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him."
If the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case are taken into account, specially the circumstances in which the order dated 09.04.2012 was passed by Hon'ble Contempt Judge noticing the existence of the dispute which was causing a hurdle in ensuring compliance of the order passed on 14.12.2011 passed by this Court and also taking into account that prior to 09.04.2012 the District Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar had himself passed an order for single hand operation of salary account on 26.03.2012, the contention that the direction issued in the order dated 09.04.2012 by Hon'ble Contempt Judge for continuance of the arrangement of single hand operation of the salary account till the disposal of the writ petition pertaining to the dispute of genuine Manager, is without jurisdiction is not acceptable. The reasons thereof have already given above, however, the Court reiterates that the said direction was only in aid of this Court to ensure compliance order passed earlier on 14.12.2011.
Learned counsel, while making his submissions to impress upon the Court that the direction contained in the order dated 09.04.2012 is without jurisdiction and hence, is not binding on the parties, perhaps looses sight of the fact that the order dated 09.04.2012 has never been challenged either by the petitioner no.2 or by any other person. In compliance of the order dated 09.04.2012, the arrangement of single hand operation of the salary account continued till 30.06.2016, however, on disclosure of fact of subsistence of the order dated 09.04.2012 and non-disposal of the writ petitions pertaining to the dispute relating to the Manager of the institution, the impugned order has been passed by the District Basic Education Officer in which the Court does not see any illegality on the grounds on which the same is being impeached by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The Court has perused the prayer clauses of Writ Petition Nos.1081 (M/S) of 2011 and 1244 (M/S) of 2011, which clearly establish that the subject matter of these two writ petitions is in fact the management of the institution and hence, since the dispute in the aforesaid writ petition is still pending consideration and the writ petitions have not been disposed of hence, by ensuring compliance of the order dated 09.04.2012, the District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar has not committed any error/mistake or illegality while passing the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the aforesaid submissions, has cited another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, reported in [(1990) 1 SCC 193] and has relied on yet another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarup Singh and another vs. Union of India and another, reported in [(2011) 11 SCC 198]. In both the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that any decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, after adjudication on merits of the rights of the parties, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceedings. However, a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter which goes to the root of the exercise of the jurisdiction or where the court lacks inherent jurisdiction, such an order would be coram non judice. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est and its invalidity can be set up as a ground as to the enforceability of such a decree.
So far as the aforesaid legal proposition laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel, however, for holding that the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by Hon'ble Contempt Judge will be inoperative or not binding or non est, it needs to be held to be without jurisdiction.
In the discussions made above, the Court has already concluded that the direction contained in the order dated 09.04.2012 was passed in the facts and circumstances of the case and only in aid of this Court to ensure compliance of the court's order, that too, only for continuance of the arrangement already made by the District Basic Education Officer in its order dated 26.03.2012. It is not a case where any fresh direction was issued by Hon'ble Contempt Judge for making an arrangement for single hand operation of the salary account.
Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the order dated 09.04.2012 cannot be permitted to be taken aid of for defending the impugned order merits rejection, which is hereby rejected.
Regarding the other two submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to him and further that in terms of the provisions contained in section 5 of the Act, 1978 without recording a finding of any difficulty having arisen in disbursement of salary, the impugned order could not have been passed, the Court may only observe that since the impugned order has been passed only to rectify/modify the mistake/error committed while passing the order dated 30.06.2016 and to ensure compliance of the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by this Court and further that the impugned order is only continuance of already existing arrangement for single hand operation of the salary account, the said grounds are not available to the petitioners to assail the impugned order.
Shri Pathak has further stated that at present there does not exist any dispute in relation to the management as the signature of the petitioner no.2 as Manager has been attested by the District Basic Education Officer vide his order dated 02.05.2015. His submission is, thus, that the two conditions mentioned in order dated 26.03.2012, passed by the then District Basic Education Officer, have been fulfilled and the order dated 30.06.2016 was thus, rightly passed. He thus, states that while passing the impugned order, the clock has been set in reverse motion and for this reason, the impugned order cannot be permitted to be sustained. He has further stated that the contempt petition no.663 of 2012 was not filed by the Assistant Teachers or non-teaching staff but by the rival manager.
The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to the Court as in terms of the order dated 09.04.2012, passed by this Court, the arrangement of single hand operation is to be continued till disposal of the writ petitions concerning dispute in relation to the management of the institution. The fact that contempt petition no.663 of 2012 was filed by the rival manager for non compliance of the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by this Court, is a fact which contributes to the conclusion that has been already arrived at above in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment on that date when the order dated 09.04.2012 was passed by the Hon'ble Contempt Judge, the dispute did exist. The argument is thus, rejected.
In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition must fail.
Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
The Court, however, is of the opinion that since the dispute in relation to management is pending consideration before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1081 (M/S) of 2011 and 1244 (M/S) of 2011, the proceedings of these two writ petitions should be expedited.
Accordingly, the aforesaid two petitions shall be listed in the first week of January, 2017 peremptorily for expeditious disposal.
There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.12.2016 akhilesh/-