A. N. Varma J. - (1.) THESE petitions are being disposed by a common judgment as they raise issues which are interconnected. We will take up writ petition no. 13321 of 1984 first, as, upon its success or failure, depends the fate of the other two petitions. The petition is directed against the order dated 22-9-1984 passed the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh whereby he ordered the release of the grant of the institution in question in favour of Chandra Prakash, the respondent no. 7 herein.
(2.) THE dispute is about the management of a recognized institution called the Nehru Higher Secondary School, Peepeganj, Gorakhpur. Dr. Chandrama Singh who has filed this petition along with others, claims to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of that institution. THE case set up by the petitioners is that the committee represented by them was duly elected on 22-8- 1982 with Dr. Chandrama Singh as its manager. By an order dated 9-9-1982 the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS for short) recognized the said committee as the lawfully constituted committee of management of the institution. This order was challenged by the group represented by Sri Chandra Prakash by means of a writ petition no. 8397 of 1983. He asserted that the institution was being run by a registered society called Jan Vikas Shiksha Prasarni Samiti, Pharenda, Gorakhpur and he was the Manager of the Committee of Management elected by the said society. THE group represented by Dr. Chandrama Singh was not elected by that society but by some other society and consequently the DIOS committed a serious error in recognizing that committee, After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court, by its order dated 22-7-1983, dismissed writ petition no. 8397 of 1983 with the observation that it will be open to Sri Chandra Prakash to have the dispute adjudicated by means of a civil suit. Sri Chandra Prakash, however, did not file any suit. THE order dated 9-9-1982 thus remained unchallenged and in operation and in the face of that order the Additional Director of Education could not order the release of the grant of the institution in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. THE order is also challenged on the ground that the same was passed without hearing the petitioners who constituted the lawfully elected Committee of Management recognized by the DIOS and was hence liable to be quashed as violative of the principles of natural justice. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable merit in the above contention. It is not disputed that Sri Chandra Prakash's attempt to challenge the order dated 9-9-1982 had proved abortive by the dismissal of writ petition no. 8397 of 1983. It is equally undisputed that Sri Chandra Prakash though expressly granted leave to file a civil suit had chosen not to institute any suit and get its claim adjudicated. The Additional Director of Education completely disregarded these facts which had a material bearing on the question as to the person in whose favour grant should be ordered. He committed a serious error in directing the release of the grant of the institution in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. As mentioned above, the latest order passed by the DIOS which was then in operation was the one passed on 9-9-1982 whereby the committee represented by Dr. Chandrama Singh was recognised as the lawfully constituted Committee of Management. The grant could hence be ordered to be released only in favour of that committee and not in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. Sri A. N. Tripathi representing Sri Chandra Prakash however, placed strong reliance on paragraph 315 of the Education Code in support of his contention that the Director of Education could while exercising powers under that provision order the release of the grant-in-aid of the institution in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash independently of the order passed by the DIOS on 9-9-1982.
(3.) WE are unable to agree. Education Code is a compilation of statutory and non statutory orders and instructions issued by the Government for the guidance of the officers and authorities in the discharge of their duties falling within the ambit of the department of the education. Paragraph 315 of this Code provides for the suspension, withdrawal or reduction in the grant-in-aid sanctioned by the Government for an aided institution where there are complaints of irregularities against the management of such an institution and for that purpose the Director has been authorised to investigate such complaints and even to suspend the grant of an institution pending enquiry. To our mind, this provision cannot be construed as over-riding the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act as well as allied enactment like the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. Under these enactments, there are specific provisions for the adjudication of disputes with respect to the management of the institution. For example, under section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act the Regional Deputy Director of Education is authorised to determine such disputes and thereupon to recognise the persons found by him as constituting the Committee of Management of the institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. Likewise the DIOS has been authorised under the aforesaid Payment of Salaries Act to operate the accounts of the teachers and employees of the institution jointly with the Manager recognised by him. In appropriate cases he can also operate the said account singly. The two powers-one under paragraph 315 of the Education Code and the other under the aforesaid enactments-have, to be exercised in harmony with each other. Paragraph 315 deals only with the sanction of grant to an aided institution and its suspension but this power cannot be exercised in disregard of the powers conferred on the designated authorities for extending recognition to the Committee of Management. It will, therefore, be wrong to suppose that in the exercise of his powers under paragraph 315 the Director was free to disregard any order passed by a competent authority recognising a committee as a lawfully constituted Committee of Management. It was in the exercise of this power that the DIOS had passed the order dated 9-9-1982. In any case, this order having received affirmation by the High Court by the dismissal of the writ petition filed by. Sri Chandra Prakash, the Director fell into a clear error in ordering the release of the grant in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash.;