Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. KHAIR INDUSTRIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL BASTI & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. Khair Industrial Higher Secondary School Basti & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 72055 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6393 (25 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72055 of 2005

Committee of Management & another

Versus

State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Sri Ashok Singh, Advocate, who has filed caveat on behalf of the rival Committee of Management, has also been heard.

The dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to appointment of an Authorized Controller to manage the affairs of the institution in question. By an order dated 25.8.2003 passed by the State Government, the District Inspector of Schools was appointed as Authorized Controller . The said order was challenged by the petitioners herein in Writ Petition No. 41890 of 2003 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.2.2004. The Special Appeal No. 262 of 2004 filed against the said order has been admitted in which a limited interim order has been granted to the extent that the Authorized Controller may proceed with the selection of the Committee of Management but no final selection shall be made until further orders. The said special appeal is still pending.

By an order dated 27th September, 2005 the State Government has modified the earlier order dated 25.8.2003 to the extent that instead of the District Inspector of Schools, the District Magistrate, Basti would be the Authorized Controller of the institution. By a subsequent order dated 7.10.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, after taking over charge as Authorized Controller, he has authorized Sri U.N.Thakur, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Basti for the purpose of payment of salary etc. of the staff and employees of the institution. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 27.9.2005 and 7.10.2005 the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

It is not the case of the petitioners that the State Government did not have power to change the Authorized Controller. It is also not their case that there was any interim order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by them or in the special appeal restraining the State Government to change the Authorized Controller. The only submission made before me is that since the matter relates to an educational institution, the State Government ought to have appointed an educational authority as Authorized Controller and not the District Magistrate.

In fact it appears that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the subsequent order written to the officiating Principal of the college asking for certain informations with regard to the students and staff of the institution and also issuing certain directions to maintain discipline etc. in the institution.

Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the caveator has submitted that the petitioners and the District Inspector of Schools were in hand in gloves and despite the interim order granted in the Special Appeal No. 262 of 2004 restraining the Authorized Controller to recognize any selection of the Committee of Management, the District Inspector of Schools had actually recognized the petitioners and thus they are interested in continuance of the District Inspector of Schools as Authorized Controller.

In my view, in the absence of there being any interim order passed by the Court restraining the State Government from changing the Authorized Controller and also when the petitioners have not been able to show or point out to the Court any provision under which the State Government could not have changed the Authorized Controller, I see no good ground for interference with the order passed by the State Government which they have done after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.  Even otherwise, the Committee of Management cannot be aggrieved, as this Court, in the special appeal has already directed that no final selection of the Committee of Management shall be made until further orders.

Accordingly, I find no good ground for interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition. This writ petition is thus dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dt/-25.11.2005

PS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.