By the Court.—Management had preferred this petition to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Principal of the institution by transfer. At the relevant time, there was no Committee of Management and a Prabandh Sanchalak had been appointed. The appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak has been upheld by a learned Single Judge and the same was affirmed by a learned Division Bench. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Judge by his order dated May 23, 2002 noted the judgment of another learned Single Judge in the case of Narendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (46) ALR 301, which had taken the view that under Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it is provided that the post of Principal in a institution can also be filled by transfer from another college, where the person sought to be transferred was appointed after selection by the Board, but such transfer is permissible only with the consent of the Management of both the institutions.

It was further observed that according to the Note at the end of Regulation 61(2) of Chapter III of the aforesaid Regulations “management” has been defined to include “the managing committee” or the officer or authority in whom the management is vested which means that the management for the purpose of giving consent for transfer, would include the “Prabandh Sanchalak”. The learned Judge after considering the issue was pleased to record in paragraph 9 of the judgment as to why he is in disagreement with the interpretation given in Narendra Kumar (supra). The reasons cited are as under :

“(a) A ‘Prabandh Sanchalak’ under the Scheme of Administration is appointed for specific purpose, after expiry of terms of Committee of Management for holding elections. He holds a temporary position to carry out the object for which he has been appointed by the Deputy Director of Education. He, therefore, cannot perform the essential functions of management which includes the appointment of Principal by transfer.

(b) The word ‘such person’ or ‘authority’ in whom the powers of management and conducting of function have been vested means a manager or in his absence, a person nominated by the Committee of Management. In Regulations 55 to 61, the word ‘Committee of Management’ has been used and that note (1) has been provided in Regulation 61 (1) to clarify that word ‘Committee of Management’ means a person or authority authorised by the management. A Prabandh Sanchalak, is no doubt, appointed under the Scheme of Administration, but he is a nominee of the Deputy Director of Education. He cannot, therefore, be a person in whom the Committee of Management have been vested the powers to manage and control the institution.

(c) A person appointed for specific purpose, namely, to hold election, cannot be entrusted with all the functions, particularly, the essential function of management which includes the appointment of Principal.

(d) A Principal is not only head of institution but is also responsible for ethos and aspirations of educational institution established by a society. Such a person cannot be imposed upon the institution, and that his appointments, without consent of Committee of Management, will amount to violating the right of the Committee of Management to establish and manage the institution.”

2. In view of that, a reference has been made to a Division Bench of this Court.

3. At the hearing of these petitions, various counsels have submitted their submissions in support of the view taken by the reference Judge. It has been argued that the sole purpose of appointing a Prabandh Sanchalak is to get the election held and to let a duly constituted Committee of Management to be in power. The Prabandh Sanchalak, appointed under the Scheme of Administration cannot be a substitute of the Committee of Management and the sole object of such appointment, is to get the election held within a time bound framed and to have a duly elected Commi