R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) BY this petition order passed by District Inspector of Schools under Section 5(i) of Payment of Salaries Act 1971 directing single operation account has been challenged both on merits and malafide.
(2.) PRIOR to this Deputy Director of Education had appointed Block Development Officer as administrator/authorised controller of the institution which was challenged in the writ petition No. 3752 of 1975 and stay order was granted. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition it is averred that the order appointing authorised controller was passed as Deputy Director of Education did not succeed in getting a teacher who was his relation and had to resign for teasing a girl student reabsorbed. And when the order was stayed by this Court the opposite -party No. 1 passed the impugned order at his instance. No counter affidavit has been filed. When the petition came up for hearing another opportunity was granted but it has not been availed. The allegations in the writ petition, therefore, remain uncontroversial. But it is not necessary to base the decision on it as the order cannot be maintained on merits even. In paragraph 15 the allegations in brief on which action was proposed to be taken have been mentioned. Its reply has been narrated in paragraph 16. The allegations stood satisfactorily explained. No irregularity remained which could have resulted in such consequences as is contemplated in Section 5(i) of the Act. It cannot be disputed that right to manage institution is primarily the right of committee of management; It should be taken away in exceptional circumstances. It should not be resorted as a handle to twist the arm of management. The order except quoting the section under which power has been exercised had not given any reason nor had discussed explanation of Petitioner in respect of various allegations made against it. The exercise of power under Section 5(i) has to be on material and it must appear from the order that the authority concerned applied its mind Normally this Court does not interfere with exercise of discretion. But the order is mechanical. It is not supported by reason. It does not give any inkling as to why the explanation of Petitioner was rejected. On facts mentioned in paragraphs 15 and 16, it is apparent that no reasonable person could have come to conclusion and would have passed the impugned order.
(3.) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 4 -7 -75 passed by opposite -parties is quashed. But there shall be no order as to costs.;