Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner-Committee of Management, which manages an Intermediate College recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, has assailed the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16.2.2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the District Inspector of Schools had held that the Respondent No. 4, being the senior most Teacher entitled for being promoted, deserves to be extended the said benefit keeping in view the provisions of the Regulations which provide for promotion under the 50% promotion quota applicable to the controversy.

2. The resistance to the impugned order by the Committee of Management is primarily on the ground that the institution is a declared and acknowledged minority institution, established and administered by the Jain Community and, therefore, is entitled to all the protections guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The District Inspector of Schools is stated to have, therefore, no jurisdiction to issue the directions to the Committee of Management for promoting the Respondent No. 4 against the choice of the Committee of Management to promote Sri Neeraj Kumar Jain as a Lecturer in the institution. The other issues on merits, which have been advanced, may deserve consideration after the aforesaid primary questions raised by the petitioner is answered.

3. Sri R.B. Singhal has been heard on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1. 2 and 3.

4. A short-counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 which has been sworn by the Respondent No. 4 himself.

5. A plethora of authorities have been cited by the learned Counsel for the parties which shall be referred to hereinafter on the aforesaid principal issue of the protection claimed by the petitioner-Committee.

6. Before delving into the said issue a preliminary point deserves to be addressed to at the initial stage itself. Sri Khare has urged that the order of the District Inspector of Schools has been passed as a consequence of a mandamus issued by this Court on 6.10.2005 on a petition filed by his client which judgment is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Sri Khare contends that in this view of the matter it is not open to the Committee of Management to resist the impugned order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. A perusal of the order dated 6.10.2005 would clearly indicate that a mandamus was issued for considering the claim of the Respondent-Sudhir Kumar Pandey in view of the fact that the proposal of promotion stated to be in favour of Respondent No. 4 has not received any attention by the District Inspector of Schools. The mandamus had been issued without putting the petitioner-Committee of Management to notice and the petition appears to have been disposed of with a direction to the Inspector to decide the matter only after putting the concerned parties to notice. Thus, the Committee was not represented before this Court and the issue pertaining to the claim of the Management seeking protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India was neither raised nor decided by this Court. From a perusal of the impugned order itself it is evident that the petitioner-Committee of Management resisted the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools on the clear ground that the District Inspector of Schools had no right to interfere with the Management and affairs of the petitioner-Committee including the dispute that had been raised before him.

7. It is by now well settled that the Court cannot confer a jurisdiction on an authority to decide a claim which power is not possessed by such an authority. The very authority of the District Inspector of Schools to issue such directions has been questioned which was not a issue before this Court in the previous writ petition. Even though it is unnecessary to burden this judgment with the authoriti