- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. There is a col lege known as Choudhary Luxmi Narain Inter College, Mandi Shyam Nagar, Dis trict Gautam Budh Nagar (the College ). It is run by a registered society. It is admitted case of the parties that the committee of management of the Society as well as of the College are the same and there is one election. (A reference to the committee of management in this judgment would in clude reference to the College as well as to the Society ). There is a dispute regarding membership of the society, the office bearers of the committee of management, and certain appointments made in the College. This dispute has given rise to numerous writ petitions. Out of these writ petitions eight survive at present and with the consent of the parties they are being decided by the present order. The facts relating to these writ petition are as fol lows: THE FACt The Earlier Writ Petitions
(2.) ELECTIONS to the committee of management were held on 2nd October, 1987 in which Sri Ramesh Kumar Choud hary (the contesting respondent) was elected as the Manager. Subsequently elections were held on 30th September, 1990 and 7th September, 1993. In these elections one Sri Vishnu Dutt Sharma was elected as Manager and Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma (the Petitioner) was elected as Deputy Manager. These elections were recognised on 6th October, 1990 and 10th September, 1993 respectively. In between these two elections one Prabandh Sanchalak was also appointed in 1993. The petitioner had filed a writ petition chal lenging the appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak whereas the contesting respon dent filed two writ petitions challenging the 1990 and 1993 elections. These three writ petitions were heard and decided ondal. exe 26th September, 1995. The writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and other two writ petitions of the contesting respondent were dismissed with the obser vations that he may approach the relevant authority. The contesting respondent filed a special appeal, which was also dismissed. 1 am informed that a suit has been filed by the contesting respondent which is still pending. The term of the committee of management is three years and elections were again held on 16-6-1996 in which petitioner was alleged to have been elected again. His signatures were also recognised by the District Inspector of Schools Gautam Budh Nagar (the DIGS) on 31st August. 1998. These elections are disputed. According to the contesting respondent elections were held on llth December, 1998 in which he was elected as the Manager. It appears that the papers of the contesting respondents were also sent but the DIGS by his order dated 10-1 -1999 refused to recognise the signature of the contesting respondent. The 1st writ petition. The petitioner's committee of management made few appointments. These are of teachers (by direct and by promotion) and of non-teaching staff. Ac cording to the contesting respondent these appointments are illegal on two counts; firstly, they made beyond sanc tioned strength; and secondly, the petitioner's committee of management was not entitled to make appointments. These teachers and non-teaching staff is hereinafter referred to as the disputed employees. The salary of these disputed employees was not being paid hence they filed Writ Petition No. 45990 of 1999 (the first writ petition) claiming that salary be paid to them. 2nd and 3rd writ petitions
(3.) THE salary of the disputed employees were also included in the salary bill. This was objected by the DIOS and he passed orders on 29-7-1999 and 2-9-1999 for single operation of accounts. THE petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 32277 of 1999 (the second (Writ Petition) and Writ Petition No. 38603 of 1999 (the third writ petition) against the single operation of the accounts on the ground that petitioner's signature was recognised and no opportunity was given before pass ing these orders. 4th writ petition It appears that some payment has been made to the disputed employees. The contesting respondent made complaints to the District Magistrate and the DIOS about these illegal appointments and payment. The District Magistrate wrote two letters on 13-9-1999 and 11-10-1999 to the DIOS that the amount illegally disbursed may be recovered. The DIOS in pursuance of this issued notices dated 5-10-1999 to the petitioner to show cause why the excess amount be not recovered. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 45991 of 1999 (the fourth writ petition) against these letters of the District Magistrate and the show cause notice of the DIOS. 5th writ petition;