JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. By an order dated 20-2-1999 the writ petition No. 6987 of 1999 was disposed of. This petition was moved by the Guardian Teacher Association and another. In the said writ petition it was prayed that on account of dispute between respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the names of the students and the forms and fees collected by these two persons (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) were not being forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools due to which no admit card was being issued to them for the ensuing examination to be held in March, 1999. In the said order dated 20-2-1999 it was directed that both respondent Nos. 4 and 5 should forward the fees and forms collected by each of them to the District Inspector of Schools within a period of one week and in case they had already deposited the fees and from then they should personally attend the Office of District Inspector of Schools and produce the relevant receipt so that the District Inspector of Schools can take appropriate step for issuing admit card to the students. This order dated 20-2-1999 has sought to be recalled by means of the present application for recalling the order dated 20-2-99 filed by respondent No. 5.
2. Mr. Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant-respondent No. 5 contends that the applicant was the officiating Principal during the period when the forms were supposed to be filled in by the students. Therefore, no one else could forward the form. He also contends that the name of the students which have been forwarded by respondent No. 4 were not bona fide students of the school since they did not deposit the fees for the whole session nor they had attended the school, therefore, they could not appear as regular student of the school in the examination. He also contends that the said writ petition was disposed of without giving any notice to respondent No. 5, therefore, he is aggrieved by the said order as such he is asking for recalling the said order.
3. Shri I.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners on the other hand contends that the petitioners have no concerned with the internal dispute between respondent Nos. 4 and 5. They interest was that the students, who were not issued admit card because of non-submission of form and fees by respondent No. 4 and 5, may be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination. Whether the students are bona fide or not that could be examined by the District Inspector of Schools while issuing admit card. If the students have appeared by mistake, in that event, it is open to the Board to withheld the result or to cancel the result if there is any irregularity or if it is found that he students were not eligible to appear as a result students. According to him the scope of the writ petition was not the forum where the dispute between respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could be threshed out. He also contends that the applicant is no more the Principal of the said school by virtue of an order dated 8-1-1999 contained in Annexure-25 to the application for recalling the order and this order according to him has not been challenged by respondent No. 5, therefore, the applicant cannot claim any locus standi, now to move this application for recalling the order dated 20-2-99 when he is not the Principal. According to him the applicant could not have claimed to be the Officiating Principal since he did not possess the requisite qualification which was so held in writ petition No. 17048 of 1984 since disposed of on 12-3-1985 as well as in writ petition No. 6126 of 1990, decided on 27-2-1990 on the same issue that the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification for holding the post of Principal. If the applicant did not possess such qualification he could not officiate as Principal, therefore, his officiating is wholly void. On these grounds, he contends that this application should be dismissed.
4. Mr. Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant was asked to address on the point of preliminary objection about the applicant's locus standi at the very out-set before he opened his case. Mr. Pandey did not address on the preliminary objection to satisfy the applicants locus standi to move this application for recalling the said order except on the ground that he was a party in the writ petition as respondent No. 5 and therefore he is entitled to apply for recalling the said order. But he has not been able to show that how that order is against his interest. He had continued his argument for almost one hour. All these arguments which have been advanced were in fact his grievances against respondent No. 4 holding the post of Principal. The scope and ambit of the present application/writ petition was not the forum in which this dispute could be raised or settled in between respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It appears that he had been making complaint against respondent No. 4 by lodging FIR with the police authorities as well as letters to the appropriate authorities with regard to the illegality and irregularities committed by respondent No. 4. Those can be determined before the appropriate forum in a proceeding between respondent Nos. 4 and 5 or otherwise. But these dispute cannot be subject-matter to be threshed out in the present application. The disposed of writ petition Mr. Pandey had also relied on the provisions of the Act relating to admission of students in the examination and had pointed that there had been infraction of the said provision to the extent that the alleged students did not secure attendance and did not deposit the requisite tuition fees for all these period.
5. I have heard Shri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for applicant at length while Mr. I.R. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner had raised the preliminary objection and put forth, his submission very briefly without elaborating his argument.
6. Mr. Pandey, has not pointed out specifically as to which provision of Paras 4 and 5 of the relevant provision for admission of students in the examination have been flouted. He had relied on the entire provision. Whether the students are regular students or not; whether the students had attended classes or not; or they had deposited fees for the entire session or not; is not a question which could be gone into within the scope and ambit of the present writ petition. However, if any students, who are not bona fide students, had been allowed to appear or have been issued admit card, the same can be very well scrutinised and gone into, if proper complaints are received by the Board or by the appropriate authority, as the case may be, and the result of such students can be withheld or can be cancelled as the case may be. But this writ petition is not the forum in which such question can be gone into since the writ petition was that on the even of examination the students were not being issued admit card, therefore, it was felt that the careers of the students should not be jeoparadised and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to issue admit card on the basis of fees and form deposited by the students either through the respondent No. 4 or respondent No. 5 and both of them were directed to forward the fees and form collected by them respectively from the students to the District Inspector of Schools within one week or in case they had already deposited, then they were required to attend the Office of District Inspector of Schools personally and produce the receipt of such deposits and forwarding of the forms. It was for the District Inspector of Schools to scrutinise the matter as he may think1 necessary and deem proper. Even if the admit card was issued and the students were permitted to appear in the examination, even then, the District Inspector of Schools or the authority concerned was not precluded from holding enquiry after the examination was over, after giving opportunity to respective students, if it is so necessary.
7. But then the way in which the applicant conducted himself, despite lacking qualification for holding the post of Principal, shows that he is out to satisfy his own ego even at the cost of the careers of the- students and the institution. Despite having been held that he did possess the qualification for the post of Principal, it is not known how he could be allowed to officiable as principle of the institution. Even for the purpose of officiating one has to possess the requisite qualification. In case he does not have the requisite qualification could not even officiate and such officiation should be deemed to be void. But however in case he had taken any step relating to the students the same shall not be affected because of this observation made above since the students cannot be made to suffer for any illegal or irregular action of respondent No. 5.
8. Even if the applicant's contention that he was party to the writ petition, therefore, he has every right to apply for recall of the order, can be accorded to, even then it has to be seen whether the order has in any way prejudiced the applicant or had adversely affected him. In the present case admittedly he has collected fees and forms from the students. He was only asked to forward the same to the District Inspector of Schools within one week if not already deposited and in case it was deposited earlier, he was asked to produce receipt of such deposit within the same time before the District Inspector of Schools, which he was otherwise bound to do. Therefore, by directing him to forward the forms and fees, no prejudiced is caused to him neither the said order has any adverse impact on him. He cannot challenge that by reason of the said order respondent No. 4 was also permitted to forward the forms and the fees collected by him since that forwarding of forms by respondent No. 4 cannot affect or prejudice the applicant since at present he is not the Principal by reason of the order dated 8-1-1999 which has not been challenged by him, and at the same time it is admitted position by reason of the order dated 12-3-1985 passed in writ petition No. 17048 of 1984 and the order dated 27-2-1990 passed in writ petition No. 6126 of 1990 the applicant was declared not to possess the requisite qualification for the post of Principal. Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicant had also contended that he is neither claiming the post of Principal nor he has come to challenge the order dated 8-1-1999 in this proceeding. In case he did not challenge the same in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, in that event, he cannot wriggled himself out of the order dated 8-1-1999 so far as the present writ petition is concerned. But until now he has not come with any statement that he had assailed the said order dated 8-1-1999 in any other proceeding either by way of writ petition or appeal/representation before, any further or the authority concerned or otherwise. Therefore, he cannot claim himself to be the Principal of the Institution. At the same time in order to maintain this application he has to say that no one-else can act as Principal. But even then by reasons of the said order dated 20-2-1999 passed in the writ petition the respondent No. 4 has been recognised as Principal nor he has been held that he could act as Principal of the institution. It was only the interest of the students which was paramount consideration only to the extent for following them to appear in the examination. If there is any dispute with regard to the eligibility or otherwise of the students that can very well be gone into after they are allowed to appear in the said examination by withholding their result or even after declaration of their result it can be cancelled by the Board.
9. Therefore, it seems that the entire argument of Mr. Pandey was besides the point and was not germane to the issue and in fact it was advanced only to satisfy the zeal and ego of respondent No. 5 in his attempt to get the other dated 20-2-1999 recalled. Therefore, I am not inclined to recall the order dated 20-2-1999 in the facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore.
10. Before parting with this case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the view that it is a fit case for investigation and let appropriate proceedings be initiated against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 if it is so warranted and the District Inspector of Schools should take appropriate step and till such steps are taken let an authorised controller do take over charge of the administration of the institution, if not already validly constituted committee of management is administering the institution. Such enquiry should be concluded as early as possible after giving opportunity to both the parties within a period of six months. It may be observed that if such things are allowed to continue that will destroy the entire educational system which would be detrimental to the interest of the students. It is expected that the District Inspector of Schools shall take appropriate step for conducting proper investigation immediately after the examination is over. It is further observed that till the proper enquiry is made, both respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be not permitted to function as Principal of the institution and the charge of Principal of the institution may be given to some other teacher in accordance with law.
11. With this observation this application for recalling the order dated 20-2-1999 is dismissed.
12. However, there will be no order as to cost.