R.A.SHARMA - (1.) There are three different groups in the committee of management of Shahee Mangal Pandey Inter College, Nagwan, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the College), each claiming the exclusive right to manage the College on the basis of elections of the Managing Committee held by them on different dates, The Committee of management of which Sri Manager Singh was the manager is said to have been elected on 28-6-1990, The Committee of Management of which Sri Amar Nath Misri was the Manager is stated to have been elected on 185-1991, The third faction of the Management of which Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak, was the Manager claims to have been elected on 15-6l992. There being dispute amongst the three different groups regarding the right to manage the College, the matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act )). The Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 19-6-1993 rejected the claim of all the three groups and appointed Prabandh Sanchalak to run and manage the College and to hold election of the Managing Committee. Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak filed a writ petition No. 28544 of 1993 before this Court, challenging the said order dated 19-6-1993 of the Deputy Director of Education, This writ petition was allowed on 17-1-1994 and the Deputy Director of Education was directed to decide the dispute afresh in accordance with law, On 7-3l994 the Deputy Director of Education again rejected the claim of all the three claimants. The said order of the Deputy Director of Education was again challenged by, Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak by filing writ petition No. 10659 of 1994, This writ petition was dismissed by learned single Judge on 5-5-1994, against which Special Appeal No. 318 of 1995 was filed, which wits decided on 16-5-1995 by a Division Bench, holding that there being serious disputes between the parties, it is not possible to decide about the validity/ legality of the elections of the three sets of Committee of Management. It was further observed that as the period of the two Committees had already expired and the period of the third is going to expire in June, 1995, no useful purpose would be served to interfere with the order of the learned Judge, The Bench, however, directed the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S. ) to hold the election of the Committee of management as far as possible within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him.
(2.) Thereafter the group of which Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak is the Manager held the election of the Managing Committee on 17-12-1995- The D.I.O.S. not having recognised the said election, writ petition No. 16507 of 1996 was filed by Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak for appropriate direction to the D.I.O.S. This writ petition was dismissed on 10-5-1996 by a learned single Judge holding that only the D.I.O.S. could hold the election pursuant to the decisions of the Division Bench in special appeal No. 318 of 1995 and it was not open to the petitioners therein to hold the election. By a letter dated 10-5-1996 the D.I.O.S. asked Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak, the Manager of one of the three rival groups, to hold election of the Committee of management Sri Pathak claims to have held the election on 18-5-1996 pursuant to the said order dated 11-5-1996 of the D.I.O.S. By letter dated 20-5-1996 the D.I.O.S. recognised the said election and attested the signature of Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak as Manager of the College. The appellants, who are members of the society, which is said to have elected the Committee of management on 18-5-1996, filed a writ petition No. 18654 of 1996, challenging the order of the D.I.O.S. dated 20-5-1996, recognising the election held by Nagendra Kumar Pathak on 18-5-1996 and attesting his signature as Manager of the College. This writ petition having been dismissed by the learned single Judge on 24-5-1996, the appellants have filed this appeal.
(3.) We have heard Sri. R.N. Singh and Sri Ashok Bhusan for appellants and Sri Ashok Khare for respondents No. 3. We have also heard the learned Standing Counsel. Sri Ashok Khare, apart from contesting the appeal on merit, has also raised an objection to the effect that this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of 'waiver' of their right to proceed with this appeal by the appellants.;