JUDGMENT D. S. Sirtha, J.
1. Heard Shri A. P.
Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-appellants. Dr. R. G. Padia. learned Senior Advocate. appearing for the petitioner-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Shri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P.. representing the respondent Nos- 1 and 2.
2. By his order and judgment dated 17th August, 1999, under appeal, the learned single Judge has directed the Director of Education (Secondary) U. P., Camp Office at Lucknow, to nominate an officer other than the present incumbent of the office of Joint Director of Education, namely, Shri Basdev Prasad for deciding the dispute relating to the management of Ekbal Inter College, Sooratpur, Pesara, District Jaunpur.
3. Under sub-section (7) of Section 16A of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), the power to decide the dispute in respect to the management of institution vests in the Regional Deputy Director of Education.
4. The Court is informed that nomenclature of Deputy Director of Education has been changed, and present nomenclature is Joint Director of Education. Thus, the Joint Director of Education is the Regional Deputy Director of Education.
5. In clause (dd) of Section 2 of the Act, the Regional Deputy Director. Education has been defined to mean the Deputy Director of Education in charge of a region and includes an officer authorised by the State Government to perform all or any of the duties of a Regional Deputy Director. Upon conjoint reading of provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 16A of the Act and clause (dd) of Section 2 of the Act, it is clear that in addition to the Deputy Director of Education in charge of a region, any other officer may be authorised by the State Government to perform all or any of the duties of a Regional Deputy Director. But, the authorisation has to be done by the State Government, and none else.
6. In view of the fact that authorisation to perform all or any of the duties of Regional Deputy Director of Education can validly be made only by the State Government, there may be difficulty before the - Director of Education (Secondary) U. P.. Camp Office at Lucknow, in authorising some officer, other than the present incumbent, for deciding the dispute in pursuance of the impugned order and judgment. Indeed, any authorisation by him will not be in consonance with the provisions of clause (dd) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to direct the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) U. P. Camp Office at Lucknow, to have an officer authorised by the State Government for the purposes of deciding the dispute in pursuance of the impugned order and judgment instead of himself authorising any officer, and it so directs.
7. The order and judgment of the learned single Judge shall stand modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above.
8. Subject to what has been said above the appeal stands disposed of finally. There is no order as to costs.