- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Present petition has its genesis in the order dated 14-6-1996 (Annexure-i3 to the writ petition) By means of the said order, the District Inspector of Schools purporting to act upto the order dated 16-5-1996 passed by this Court has recogaised the Committee of Manage ment of which Sri Shiv Naresh claims to have been elected as Manager, and revoked the earlier order dated 23-5-1996 passed under Section 1 of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary) Act, 1971.
(2.) I have heard Sri Arun Tandon and Sri Dinesh Dwevdi appearing for petitioners and respondents respectively. It transpires from the record that 14-4-1996 was the date set down for election. Election materialised on the date fixed. However, it appears that there stemmed two parallel committee of' Management on the basis of election held on 14-4-1996, Sri S. K. Misra claims himself to have been elected as Manager of one of the Committee of Management while Sri Shiv Naresh claims to be the elected Manager of the rival com mittee of Management. Both the rival Committees of Management staked their respective claims before the Distt. Inspector of Schools for recognition. In this vexed situation, the District Inspector of Schools, vide order dated 23-5-li!96 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) referred the dispute for resolution to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Sec tion 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. it would also appear that by means of the letter dated 23-5-1996, the District Inspector of Schools sought the Regional Deputy Director of Education to appoint either the Principal of Government Inter College, Bargarh or the Principal of Government Inter College, Banda as Authorised controller of the Institution. The contention of Sri Arun Tandon is that the impugned order dated 14-6-1996 has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools without affording any opportunity of hearing and further that it was not open to the D. I. O. S. to recognise one of the rival Committees of Manage ment since he had already referred the dispute to the Regional Dy. Director of Education as evident from the letter dated 23-5- 1996. Sri Dinesh Dwivedi countered the submissions by canvassing that there was no bonafide dispute and therefore, the District Inspector of Schools was scrupulously justified in according approval to the Committee of Management of which Sri Shiv Naresh Misra claimed to be the elected Manager which, according to Sri Dwevdi, was constituted under the supervision of the representative of the Distt. Inspector of Schools.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for tho parties, I am pursuaded to the view that the impugned order dated 14-4-1996 wears the taint of patent infirmity on its forehead inasmuch as it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Committee of Management which had already staked its claim for recognition before the D. I. O. S. The District Inspector of schools having once referred the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education, could not have recoiled to take a contrary view that there was no bonafide dispute about existence of two parallel com mittees of Management. It may usefully be observed here that the Distt. Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order except possibly on qualified grounds that the orders sought to be reviewed were based on misrepresentation, fraud or were born of misconception of law and fact. No such finding has been assigned to prop up its order by the Distt. Inspector of Schools and even no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before wielding his pen to accord recognition to the respondent-Committee of Management. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order detracts from merit and is liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14-4-1996 is quashed. Petition allowed. .;