R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS , claiming to be the committee of management and manager of Salik Ram Gram Sabha Junior High School, Karaulia, Badaun (here -in -after referred to as the school), have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 2 -6 -1992, passed by the Lekha Adhikari for single operation of the school account.
(2.) THE Respondents have filed counter affidavit and the Petitioner have filed rejoinder affidavit in reply there -to. An application for impleadment of Smt. Muizza Khatoon has been made through Sri S.C. Budhwar. Although I have not impleaded her finally but I have heard Sri Budhwar. The impugned order suffers from three intimates ,namely, (i) order for single operation of the school account has been passed by the Lekha Adhikari under the direction of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, (ii) conditions precedent for passing such an order, as provided by the second proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 5 of the U.P. Junior High School (payment of salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (here -in -after referred to as the Act) have not been fulfilled, and (iii) the order has been passed without giving any notice/opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners.
(3.) IT is clear from the reading of the impugned order that the Lekha Adhikari had passed it in view of the direction dated 1 -6 -1992 issued by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Badaun. Under the second proviso of section 5(1) of the Act, the Education Officer has been empowered to order for single operation of the school account by himself or by any other officer nominated by him. The Education Officer has been defined to mean the District Basic Education Officer and includes any other officer authorised by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of Education Officer under the Act. It is not disputed that the Lekha Adhikari is the officer, who has been authorised by the State Government to perform the functions as Education Officer and as such, he was empowered to pass an order for single operation of the school account. It is thus apparent that both the District Education Officer and the Lekha Adhikari can perform the power under the second proviso; but one cannot direct the other to pass that order. In the instant case in the impugned order it has been categorically mentioned that under the direction of the District Basic Education Officer, Badaun the order for single operation of the school account has been passed. When the Lekha Adhikari has himself been authorised to pass the impugned order for single operation, he should not have acted solely on the direction of the District Basic Education Officer. He should have satisfied himself before passing the impugned order as to whether the conditions for passing such order are there. Lekha Adhikari having failed to apply his own mind and having acted under the direction of the District Basic Education Officer the impugned order cannot be sustained.;