JUDGMENT R.R. Yadav, J.
1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Jain, learned counsel for petitioners, learned standing counsel as well as Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shailesh Verma representing respondent No. 4.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that order impugned dated 24.3.2002, Annexure-7 to the writ petition is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the appointment of authorised controller of petitioners' Institution is within exclusive jurisdiction of either State Government or Joint Director of Education. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, respondent No. 1 has not jurisdiction whatsoever to pass the order impugned, Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shailesh Verma in feeble voice made an attempt to support the order impugned (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by District Magistrate, Maharajganj. Alternatively, it is urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that, even if, this Court arrived at a conclusion that the order impugned passed by the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction, even then the question for appointment of authorised Controller is to be left open to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. Learned standing counsel has adopted the argument advanced by Sri Ashok Khare.
4. I have given my anxious thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. In my considered opinion, the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, has no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). It is held that the appointment of authorised controller is within exclusive jurisdiction of either State Government or Joint Director of Education of the concerned region, depending upon the facts of each case. It is to be imbibed by all of us that an order for appointment of authorised controller cannot be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Committee of Management or persons likely to be adversely affected by such order of appointment of authorised controller. It goes without saying from perusal of the order impugned passed by District Magistrate, Maharajganj, that he has passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
5. Be that as it may, since the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass the order impugned (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) appointing authorised Controller, hence the order impugned deserves to be ignored whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced.
6. I am fortified in taking the aforesaid view from the decision rendered in the case of Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chairman Paswan and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 340. However, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash the order impugned (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by District Magistrate, Maharajganj, appointing authorised controller in the case on hand.
7. As a result of aforementioned discussion, the order impugned dated 24.3.2002, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and the instant writ petition is allowed. It is made clear that the question relating to appointment of authorised controller of the petitioner's Institution is left open to be decided by a competent authority in accordance with law.