N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) SINCE the decision of this writ petition hinges only on the interpretation of Regulation 5 framed for purposes of Section 16 -C of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and since both the Respondents are represented by the standing counsel, we are of opinion that this writ petition should be finally disposed off as contemplated by the II proviso to Rule 2(1) of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE Petitioner is the committee of management of Janta Shiksha Niketan Intermediate College, Orwara, District Basti. It appears that one Bishwa Dev Shukla was the manager of this committee of management, He resigned from the office and Paras Nath Shukla thereafter claimed to be the Manager. The matter was referred to the District Inspector of Schools presumably for recognising Paras Nath Shukla as the new Manager. The District Inspector of Schools by means of order dated 12 -9 -1978, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure '1' to the writ petition, refused to recognise Paras Nath Shukla as the Manager of the Petitioner committee of management. It is this order of the District Inspector of Schools which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. Having heard counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel we are of opinion that the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools does not suffer from any such error which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Before the District Inspector of Schools even Bishwa Dev Shukla contended that he was continuing as Manager of the committee of management and that he had not submitted resignation. This plea did not find favour with the District Inspector of Schools and he came to the conclusion that Bishwa Dev Shukla had actually resigned from the office of the Manager. In regard to Paras Nath Shukla, the view which the District Inspector of Schools took was that since he was also a class IV employee of another recognised institution, he could not, in view of regulation 5 aforesaid, act as an office bearer of the Petitioner committee of management.
(3.) IT has been urged by the counsel for the Petitioner that the interpretation put by the District Inspector of Schools on Regulation 5 is erroneous inasmuch as Regulation 5 prohibits only a member of the teaching staff or the Principal or Head Master, or members of the clerical staff or Class IV employees from acting as an office bearer of the committee of management of that very recognised institution in which they are employed and it does not place any restriction on their acting as an office bearer of a committee of management of a different recognised institution. We find no substance in this submission. Chapter III of the regulations deals with conditions of service of the employees of a recognised institution. We are of opinion that in order to appreciate the true import of Regulation 5 it is also necessary to take into consideration Regulation 4. These two regulations are as follows: 4. No teacher shall be appointed whether in a temporary or clear vacancy in an institution who is related to any member of the committee of Management or the Principal or Headmaster, nor shall a Headmaster or Principal be appointed in an institution who is related to any member of the Committee of Management.;