- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the proceedings under Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, whereunder the Committee of Management elected on 14-8-1994 with Madan Kumar vasishtha as its Manager had been granted recognition after rejecting the claim of Bal Kishan Agrawal terminating The arrangement of single operation of the accounts of the college maintained under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1991, the petitioners have now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said order the direction to the respondents not to interfere in their functioning duly constituted managing committee of Sri Devatary Adarsh Inter College Karnvash, district Bulandshahr.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing No. 1,2 and 3 as well as Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 4. On the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, considering the nature of the dispute involved in the case, this writ petition is being disposed of finally. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has in support of the writ petition urged that the impugned order stands vitiated in law on account of its having been passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice, adopting a procedure contrary to law resulting in prejudicing their interest. The contention is that as is apparent from the impugned order itself, the Deputy Director of Education had fixed 4th January, 1995 for the hearing of the case on which date the respective parties had to substan tiate their claims. However Sri Madan Kumar Vashistha, who claimed recognition of the Committee of Management alleged to have been elected on 14-8-1994 filed documentary evidence in support of his claim on 10-1-1995 and certain additional material was produced later on which material though filed subsequent to the date fixed for hearing that is 10-1-1995 was utilised against the petitioners without affording them any opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal. It has also been urged that a large number of documents were annexed alongwith the application dated 5-1-1995 which had been filed on 5-1-1995 by Madan Kumar Vasishtha, the copies whereof were not made available to the petitioners and accepting the additional material brought on record, the Deputy Director of Educa tion proceeded to pass the impugned order basing his findings on the said materials. The contention is that in such a situation the additional material brought on record subsequent to the hearing of the case and that too behind the back of the petitioners without giving them an opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal thereof was highly prejudicial to their interest and further has resulted in manifestly erroneous conclusion render ing the order in question unsustainable in law.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the contesting respondents have not disputed this fact that the additional material had been allowed to be brought on record by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and was also utilised against the petitioners. It is also not disputed that the copies of the additional material were not made available to the petitioners. However, what has been urged is that on the date fixed for hearing, the Regional Deputy Director of Education had allowed the parties an oppor tunity to file additional evidence. It has however, not been disputed that the additional evidence which was allowed to be brought on record had not been brought to the notice of the petitioners.;