R. A. Sbarma J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by interim orders, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, appointing Prabandh Sanchalak (hereinafter referred to as the Administrator for managing the affairs of Intermediate colleges during the pendency of managerial dispute before him under Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
(2.) THE impugned orders have been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds, namely, (i) the Deputy Director of Education has no jurisdiction to pass any interim order during the pendency of the dispute before him under section 16-A (7) of the Act and (ii) in view of the facts and circumstances of these cases, no case for passing interim order appointing Administrator was made out. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S. (1985 ALJ 27) has held that after the reference of dispute to the Deputy Director of Education under section 16-A (7) of the Act, the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.) has no jurisdiction over the matter and it is for the Deputy Director of Education to make interim arrangement for the management of the institution. Relevant extract from the said Judgment is reproduced below ; "We are unable to accept that the Deputy Director of Education has no power to make an interim arrangement for management of the institution. We are of the opinion that when the Deputy Director of Education is seised of the dispute about the validity of the two rial managements, he is also empowered to pass interim orders regarding the management of the institution. A Tribunal, which has power to decide a dispute finally has inherent powers to pass orders as it deems fit and proper for the power management of the institution during the pendency of the dispute." Learned counsel for the petitioners have however, in support of their submissions relied upon the two decisions of this Court in the cases of Meerut College Association v. Sri Arvind Nath Seth, 1982 UP LB EC 82 and Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S., 1991 AWC 325. The case of Meerut College Association (supra), which was decided by a Division Bench, relates to the power of Prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to pass interim order. This ease deals with the provisions of different Act and the question relating to the power of the Deputy Director of Education to pass interim order during the pendency of dispute before him was neither raised nor decided The case of Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S. (Supra) is a decision by a learned Single Judge In which certain observations' have been made to the effect that there is no power with the Deputy Director of Education to pass any Interim order in a matter pending before him under section 16-A (7) of the Act. Relevant extract from this judgment is reproduced below : 'I also agree with the submission of the petitioner's counsel that there is no power with the Deputy Director of Education to pass an interim order in a matter pending before it under section 16-A (1) of the Act. Moreover, neither the Standing Counsel nor the respondeat has been able to place any interim order passed by the Deputy Director of Education authorising the D.I.O.S. to pass the impugned order." The views of the learned Single Judge as expressed in the aforesaid case are contrary to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S. 1985 ALJ 27 (Supra) and as such, are liable to be treated as per incuriam and cannot have the binding force. The decision of the Division Bench in the case of Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S 1985 ALJ 27 (supra) is beinding on me and no ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to take a different view. In this connection it may be mentioned that if after the expiry of the term of the previous committee of management, two or more 'factions of the managements have laid their claims for managing the affairs of the college, the D.I.O.S. has no jurisdiction to attest the signature of any one of them and the only course left to him is to refer the dispute before the Deputy Director of Education for adjudication under section 16-A (7) of the Act. The old committee of management, the term of which has expired, cannot continue to manage the affairs of the college and no other committee having been recognised by the D.I.O.S,. the vacuum is created, which is liable to affect working of the college. Under these circumstances the Deputy Director of Education has to make interim arrangement for managing the affairs of the college during the pendency of the dispute. If the Deputy Director of Education is deprived of such a power, there will be almost an anarchy and chaos in the educational institution during the pendency of dispute before him, as there will be none to manage the college. The first submission of the learned counsel as such, has got to be rejected.
(3.) THE second submission is a pure question of facts, which is liable to be agitated before the Deputy Director of Education. It is always open to any of the parties to the dispute to apply before the Deputy Director of Education for recalling the interim order passed by him and when such an application is made the Deputy Director of Education is required to decide the same expeditiously after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties to the dispute. In this connection it may be observed that unless the case requires immediate action, the Deputy Director of Education should pass interim order appointing Administrator only after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties to the dispute. In the case of urgency the post decisional hearing can be given to the parties.;