Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) THESE two special appeals have been filed against the same judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 4.3.2011 in writ petition No. 11286 of 2011, Committee of Management Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College Amroha J.P. Nagar through its manager Rehan Ali Naqvi v. State of U.P., by which order, the writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. Both the special appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. In Special Appeal No. 449 of 2011, Rehan Ali Naqvi is the appellant, who hereinafter referred to as 'writ petitioner'. In special Appeal No. 479 of 2011, Ali Makin Naqvi is the appellant, who was respondent in writ petition No. 11286 of 2011 and is hereinafter referred to as 'respondent'.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to these two special appeals now need to be noted. Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College, Amroha, J.P. Nagar is a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is also receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The institution is a minority institution as recognised by the State Government on 22.4.1974. The institution is being managed by scheme of administration duly approved under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Committee of Management of the institution is being constituted in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. The Scheme of Administration was amended by extending the term of Committee of Management from three years to five year with the approval of Joint Director of Education dated 27.10.2009. The last recognised election of the Committee of Management was held on 4.11.2005, in which Rehan Ali Naqvi, the writ petitioner was elected as Manager. The election held on 4.11.2005 was approved by the Regional Level Committee by its order dated 31.3.2006 against which order writ petition No. 24566 of 2006 was filed by Tajdar Hussain and four others which writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.10.2009 of Hon'ble Single Judge. In the meantime, by order dated 15.1.2009, the District Inspector of Schools recognised Ali Makin Naqvi as Manager of the Committee of Management, treating that term of the Committee of Management of three years came to an end. The order dated 15.1.2009 was challenged by Rehan Ali Naqvi by filing writ petition No. 11590 of 2009, which was allowed by judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 28.10.2009 mentioned above. The term of the Committee of Management elected on 4.11.2005 was going to expire on 4.11.2010. Rehan Ali Naqvi, the Manager issued agenda for holding the fresh elections on 31.10.2010. On 31.10.2010, the elections were held. On the basis of the elections dated 31.10.2010, the papers were submitted on 2.12.2010 by Ali Makin Naqvi as Manager claiming fresh elections and recognition. The District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 3.11.2010 recognised Ali Makin Naqvi as Manager. On 4.11.2010 on the basis of the elections dated 31.10.2010, papers were submitted by Rehan Ali Naqvi as Manager claiming to be elected as Manager in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. Writ petition No. 69838 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner Rehan Ali Naqvi, challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3.11.2010. Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 1.12.2010 allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order of District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools was directed to re-examine the papers transmitted qua elections held by the rival parties and to take necessary decision thereon, as may be warranted in accordance with law as also in terms of the Government orders applicable. After the order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 1.12.2010, the District Inspector of Schools heard both the parties and after considering the respective representations and replies submitted by both the parties, upheld the elections claimed by Ali Makin Naqvi dated 31.10.2010, returning finding that valid members of the general body have participated in the elections as claimed by Ali Makin Naqvi. By order dated 11.2.2011, recognition was issued in favour of Ali Makin Naqvi and the claim of Rehan Ali Naqvi, the writ petitioner was rejected. Writ petition No. 11286 of 2011 was filed by Rehan Ali Naqvi challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11.2.2011, which writ petition has been disposed of by Hon'ble Single Judge dated 4.3.2011 ,taking the view that the order of District Inspector of Schools is Coram Non Judice. Hon'ble Single Judge held that the matter is to be dealt with by the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee was directed to decide the matter afresh without being influenced of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11.2.2011. Hon'ble Single Judge however, did not quash the order dated 11.2.2011 so that functioning of the institution be not jeopardised. However, certain restrictions on the management was imposed that the management shall not be entitled to take any decision pertaining to appointment or otherwise of the principal, teachers and other employees of the institution and should be obliged to seek permission from the District Inspector of Schools for spending any amount above Rs. 500/- during the period of the dispute before the Regional Joint Director of Education. Both the parties being aggrieved by the said order have come up in the appeal. Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in special Appeal No. 449 of 2011 contended that the order of District Inspector of Schools being Coram Non Judice was liable to be set aside. He submits that there being two rival claimants regarding elections of the Committee of Management dated 31.10.2010, the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and he was obliged to make a reference to the Regional Level Committee in accordance with the Government orders dated 19.12.2000 and 20.10.2008. He further submits that the order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 1.12.2010 by which this Court directed the District Inspector of Schools to re-examine the matter, cannot confer jurisdiction on the District Inspector of Schools which was not otherwise available to him and the District inspector of Schools ought to have considered the question as to whether he was competent to decide the dispute or reference to Regional Level Committee was necessary. He submits that the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 11.2.2011 deserves to be set aside by Hon'ble Single Judge and Hon'ble Single Judge erred in not setting aside the said order. Sri Shashi Nandan assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Singh appearing for the respondents submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had full jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the view of Hon'ble Single Judge that the order of District Inspector of Schools is Coram Non Judice is erroneous. He submits that according to the Government order dated 20.10.2008, the District Inspector of Schools has been conferred with tine jurisdiction to determine the claim of elections of Committee of Management and the order dated 11.2.2011 was well within his jurisdiction. He further submits that the writ petitioner did not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools, when the matter was being heard. He further submits that in writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3.11.2010, no ground was taken that District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute. He submits that in view of the directions of this Court dated 1.12.2010, the District Inspector of Schools has to determine the dispute and writ petitioner is not estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of District Inspector of Schools.
(3.) SRI Shashi Nandan, further contended that present was not a case for reference to the Regional Level Committee since the reference is contemplated when there is legal difficulty . He submits that there was no legal difficulty in the present case which required reference to the Regional Level Committee. He further submits that the Joint Director of Education as well as Regional Level Committee are empowered to decide a dispute when the dispute is to be determined in accordance with Section 16-A(7) i.e. when the dispute is to be decided on the basis of effective control and in the present case, the dispute was to be determined regarding the validity of the respective elections hence, the dispute was beyond the purview of Section 16-A(7) and District Inspector of Schools was empowered to decide the dispute. He submits that judgment relied by Hon'ble Single Judge in Committee of Management, SRI Rameshwar Prasad Balika Higher Secondary School, Rasra, Ballia and another v. Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, (2005) 2 UPLBEC 1220, has no application in the facts of the present case. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.;