A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) The challenge is to the order dated 18.8.2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, by Sri Lal Chandra Yadav claiming himself to be the Manager of the two institutions arrayed as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and who has also described himself as a Secretary of the petitioner No. 1, whereby the District Inspector of Schools has held that the order of suspension of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 passed by the petitioner is without authority of law and has further approved the continuance of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 as the head of their respective institutions in the interest of students.
(2.) The institutions namely Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Inter College of which the respondent No. 4 claims himself to be the Principal is a boys institution and Mahanagar Girls Intermediate College of which the respondent No. 5 claims herself to be the Principal is a girls institution. Both these institutions are recognized, as such, under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. Admittedly, these two institutions do not receive any grant from the State funds. The institutions are to be managed by a Committee duly constituted under a scheme of administration approved under Section 16 (A) (5) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 claim themselves to be a duly constituted committee of which Sri Lal Chandra Yadav claims himself to be the Manager. The dispute arose when the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 fell out and differences arose between them resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the petitioners against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Simultaneously, a dispute with regard to the valid constitution of the Committee also appears to have been raised. The petitioner has filed copies of the letter dated 19.7.2005 appended as Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition, whereby the District Inspector of Schools has intimated the respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively that the petitioner Lal Chandra Yadav continues to be recognized as the Manager of the ' respective institutions and, as such, the institution shall be managed accordingly. It has been stated at the Bar that the question of the validity of the Committee of Management and its recognition is already engaging the attention of this Court in some other petitions. To further substantiate his claim, the petitioner Lal Chandra Yadav has also placed reliance on the communication dated 6.8.2005 appended as Annexures-5 & 6 to the writ petition, whereby it has been communicated to the petitioner that the Teachers referred to in the said order have been authorized to receive the examination forms of the students. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that the communication of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9.8.2005 indicates that there is a dispute in respect of the institutions. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 culminated in passing of the impugned order dated 18.8.2005 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has recognized the respondent nos. 4 and 5 as the Head of the respective institutions in the interest of students.
(3.) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri S.D. Shukla, Advocate and Sri R.K. Ojha and Sri Saroj kumar yadav for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively. Learned Stnading Counsel has assisted the Court on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Upon having advanced their respective submissions, learned counsels for the parties agreed for the matter to be disposed of finally at this stage.;