D.P.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Both these parties have exchanged their pleadings. Though, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 the learned standing counsel has been heard on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 4, even though service is sufficient on him and no counter-affidavit has been filed by him, even though time was granted to file counter-affidavit.
(2.) Both the parties agree that the writ petition itself may be disposed of under the Rules of the Court.
(3.) The facts as revealed from perusal of the record, provides a classical example as to how the atmosphere of an educational institution is polluted. A self-righteous Principal and an adamant Manager, put in a political player with an obliging District Inspector of Schools and a Police Officer, the result is catastrophic. Though the interest of the student is supreme, they are not even mentioned. But this Court has to adhere to cold logic of law.;