Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

3. None of the contesting respondents pray for time to file any counter-affidavit and they submit that as only legal issues are to be decided at this level the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage with the consent of the parties.

5. Challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 29th January, 2011 whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar has proceeded to constitute a three member committee in order to ascertain the facts pertaining to the dispute of recognition of Committee of Management of an Intermediate college under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

6. Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the District Inspector of Schools is absolutely erroneous and not in conformity with the Government Order dated 20th October, 2008. He submits that the District Inspector of Schools has erroneously proceeded to appoint a Sub-Committee. As a matter of fact, there is no power conferred under the Government Order or under any law for the time being in force, empowering the District Inspector of Schools to constitute a Sub-Committee of three members in order to enquire any such matter.

7. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant, respondent No. 7 submits that it is only for the purpose of fact finding that such Sub-Committe was constituted and even otherwise the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 21st January, 2011 whereby the matter was remitted to the District Inspector of Schools for taking decision in terms of the Government Order dated 20th October, 2008. He, therefore, contends that there is no error in the impugned order and, therefore, no interference is called for.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has adopted the same argument.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy reference be had to the Government Order dated 20th October, 2008 which is quoted hereinbelow:-

ÞuofuokZfpr izcU?kd ds gLrk{kj ds izek.ku dh O;oLFkk

la[;k&1154@15&9&08&25 ¼9½ @ 08

izs"kd] lsok esa]

v:.k dqekj feJk] f’k{kk funs’kd ¼ek0½

izeq[k lfpo] m0 iz- 'kkluA m0 iz-] bykgkckn@ y[kuÅA

laLÑr f’k{kk vuqHkkx] y[kuÅ% fnukad 20 vDVwcj]2008

fo"k;% izns’k ds vk’kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek?;fed fo?kky;ksa dh izcU/k lfefr;ksa ds pquko ds mijkUr uo&fuokZfpr izcU?kd ds gLrk{kj izek.ku dh O;oLFkkA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k;d izdj.k esa 'kklu ds laKku esa ;g rF; vk;k gS fd e.Myh; la;qDr f’k{kk funs’kd dh v/;{krk esa xfBr e.Myh; lfefr }kjk izcU/kdksa ds gLrk{kj dks izekf.kr djus ds laca/k esa dfri; dkj.kksa ls foyEc fd,s tkus ls izcU/k lfefr ds oSèkkfud pquko ds mijkUr Hkh yEch vof/k rd izcU/kdksa ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr ugha gks ik jgs gSa] ftlls izcU/k lfefr ds fuokZpu dk mn~ns’; iwjk ughs gks ik jgk gSA lEizfr ek/;fed f’k{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 16 d ¼7½ esa izca/k lfefr ds fookn dh fLFkfr esa tkapksijkUr izcU/k lfefr dks ekU;rk fn;s tkus dk vf/kdkj e.Myh; lfefr dks fn;k x;k gSA mDr e.Myh; lfefr esa e.Myh; la;qDr f’k{kk funs’kd] v/;{k rFkk e.Myh; mi f’k{kk funs’kd o ftyk fo?kky; fujhZ{kd lnL; gksrs gSA izkjfEHkd Lrj ij gLrk{kj izekf.kr djus ds fu.kZ; esa lfEefyr gksus ij iqu% vihy fd, tkus dh n’kk esa mlh vfèkdkjh }kjk ekU;rk iznku djus ds vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx djus ls uSlfXZkd U;k; ds fl+)kUrksa dk mYya?ku gksrk gSA of.kZr fLFkfr esa mDr folaxfr@xfrjks/k ds fuokj.kkFkZ iz’uxr O;oLFkk esa iwoZ izkfo/kkfur O;oLFkk dks vfrdzfer djrs gq, lE;d fopkjksijkUr v’kkldh; lgk;rk izkr ek/;fed fo?kky;ksa dh izcU/k lfefr;ksa ds oS/kkfud pquko ds mijkUr fuokZfpr izcu/kd ds gLrk{kj izek.ku ds lEcU/k esa fuEukuqlkj izkfo/kku fd,s tkus dk