S. C. Mathur, J. - - (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by appointment of Authorised Controller for Pragati Ashram, Balaganj, Hardoi Road, Lucknow by the State Government in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16-D (4) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Shortly stated petitioner's case is that the School is neither recognised under the Act mentioned herein nor it is receiving any grant in aid from the Education Department of the State Government although it was receiving grant from the Harijan and Welfare Department and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it and accordingly the authorised Controller could not be appointed by the State Govt, under the provisions of the said Act. THE Authorised Controller was appointed by order dated 9-8-85, Annexure 19, for a period of one year which has expired but he has been continued by subsequent orders, and he is still continuing as such.
(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is All India Crime Prevention Society and petitioner No. 2 is its President. PETITIONER No. 1 has been stated to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Society runs a school at Balaganj, Hardoi Road, Lucknow known as Pragati Ashram High School. It is claimed that in this School education is imparted from Classes I to X to ex-criminals and members of backward classes ; the school is a residential one and is continuing since 1958. In Paragraph 8 of the petition it has been stated that the land and building in which the school is being run, is owned by the petitioner-Society. In Paragraph 9 it is averred that the Education Department of U. P. Government never provided any fund for running the school although cent percent funds were provided by Harijan and Social Welfare Department of the State Government. These funds were utilised in providing food, clothing, books, stationery, medicines to the students and in payment of salary to the teachers and the staff. No education fee was charged from the students. Specific averment has been made in Paragraph 12 to the effect that no grant in aid was ever received for running the school from the Education Department of the U. P. Government. It is also stated in this very paragraph that teachers of the school were never appointed with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Deputy Director of Education. In the matter of appointment of staff, control was exercised by the department of Harijan and Social Welfare. Head Master of the School Sri R. P. Singh was appointed with the approval of the Director of the said Department ; a copy of his order dated 6-7-82 issued in this behalf has been filed as Annexure No. 5. In paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 4-3-83 filed on behalf of the petitioners it has been specifically stated that the school has not been recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education or by any other authority of the Education Department. So long as the Society continued to receive grants from the Harijan and Social Welfare Department, no problem arose in running the school but in the year 1984-85 despite the order of the Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh dated 29-3-85 the last instalment of the grant of Rs. 2,00,000/- was not released, with the result that it became impossible for the Society to run the school and on 20-5-85 it served notices upon the employees terminating their services with effect from 20-6-85. It appears that against the order terminating services of the employees Writ Petition No. 2539 of 1985 has been filed in this Court by the Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh in which State of U. P. has also been impleaded and a writ of mandamus has been claimed to command the State Govt, to appoint authorised controller for the School. Now a few developments culminating in the passing of the impugned order may be noticed. On 11-4-1983 the Additional Director of Education, Allahabad issued notice to the Manager of the School purporting to be under Section 16-D (2) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, for short ' the Act ', requiring him to remove the defects pointed out in the notice within 15 days; a copy of this notice is Annexure 7. The President of the Society submitted reply on 27-4-83, Annexure No. 8. On 17th August, 1983 the Additional Director of Education issued notice under Section 16-D (3) of the Act stating therein that the reply was not satisfactory and requiring to show cause against the proposed appointment of Authorised Controller under Section 16-D (4) ; copy of this notice is Annexure 10. Reply on behalf of the petitioners was submitted on 29th August, 1983, Annexure 11. Thereafter, after a gap of about two years the impugned order appointing Authorised Controller was passed by the State Government, copy of which is Annexure 19. According to the petitioners, although the impugned order appointing authorised Controller was passed on 9-8-85, the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer who was appointed Authorised Controller, entered into the school premises and took possession thereof on 8-8-1985 with the assistance of a Magistrate and the Station Officer, Police Station Kakori and also took into his custody the records pertaining to the school as well as the Society. On the above facts the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of notices, Annexures Nos. 7 and 10 and of the order, Annexure 19. They have further claimed mandamus to command the Authorised Controller to hand over possession of the building and the records to the petitioners.
(3.) IN the writ petition the petitioners have impleaded State of U. P. through the Secretary, Education Department as well as through the Secretary, Harijan and Social Welfare Department, District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer, Lucknow, District Magistrate, Lucknow, Sri R. N. Trivedi, District Magistrate, Lucknow and ..the Authorised Controller, Pragati Ashram, Lucknow. None of the Opposite Parties had filed any counter affidavit except the Authorised Controller. The State Government has made no attempt to justify the impugned order. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Authorised Controller the petitioners' assertion that the School was being run in the building owned by the Society, was sought to be challenged with reference to Annexure E-1 which is copy of the agreement entered into between the Governor of State and the Society. From this document it appears that the land on which building, in which school was run, was acquired by the State Government at the instance of the petitioner-Society and thereafter it was transferred to the Society for consideration. This document itself shows that the land belongs to the Society. Of course, this agreement enumerates certain conditions of transfer and reserves right of re-entry in favour of the Governor in the event of breach of the said terms. But that is beside the point as no action has been taken by the State to resume the land.;