The main legal point established is that a Committee of Management does not become defunct after its term expires and can continue to function until a new committee is constituted, especially when recognized and dealt with as the valid management by relevant authorities and stakeholders.

( 1 ) committee of Management Shri Kashiraj Mahvidyalaya Inter College Aurai, referred to as com, and its Manager, ( Appellants No. 1 and 2 respectively, before us), have filed above intra-court Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 Rules of the Court to assail judgment and order dated April 22, 2003 passed by learned of Single Judge, dismissing writ petition No. 544 of 2003 (Committee of Management Shri Kashiraj Mahavidyalaya Inter College and another versus Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur and others ).

( 2 ) THE appellants filed above writ petition claiming following reliefs:

" (i) a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21. 12. 2002 (Annexure No. 17 to this writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2. (ii) any other writ, order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. (iii) award cost of the petition to the petitioner. We may first, in brief, sum up relevant facts of the case.

( 3 ) SHRI Kashiraj Mahvidyalaya Inter College is a recognized Inter College (on grant in aid list of the State Government), governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Regulations framed thereunder, U. P. High schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of teacher and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971), and U. P: secondary Education Service Selection Board Act.

( 4 ) COM of the above College passed resolution dated June 2, 2002 and decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Jai Narain Pandey (the then Principal) and Daya Shanker Singh (the then Clerk) of the College) (respondents 3 and 4 ). On 03. 06. 2002, COM suspended them. As required under Section 16-G (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter called the "act") papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools (called DIOS) for approval.

( 5 ) THE DIOS in turn, issued notices to show cause dated July 8, 2002, and directed respondent nos. 3 and 4 to explain as to why suspension order be not approved. According to the Committee of Management, no reply was submitted. The DIOS, vide order dated 1/8/2002 approved decision of suspension taken by the COM (Annexures 8 and 9 ). Eater, respondent No. 3, submitted objections dated August 7, 2002.

( 6 ) IN the meantime DIOS vide letter October 2, 2002 directed COM to submit its reply against aforesaid objections filed by the respondents 3 and 4.

( 7 ) THE DIOS, however, vide order dated 21. 12. 2002 Annexure 17 to the writ petition) revoked suspension order dated 3. 6. 2002 passed by COM against respondents No. 3 and 4 ; directed com amongst others to initiate action against other four persons who were, according to him, involved in the alleged financial irregularities along with respondents No. 3 and 4. The DIOS, at the same time directed Respondents 3 and 4 also to produce relevant documents in their possession and cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by COM.

( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved, COM filed above referred writ petition No. 544 of 2003 seeking to challenge aforesaid order dated 21. 12. 2002.

( 9 ) PARTIES exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits. After hearing learned counsels for the respective parties, this Court passed an interim order staying operation of the impugned order dated 21. 12. 2002, and complete inquiry proceedings expeditiously

( 10 ) COM Meanwhile claims to have completed Inquiry and submitted papers to D. I. O. S. , who did not forward the same to the Board for approval as required under U. P. Secondary Education services Selection Board (UPSESSB ). The COM filed a supplementary affidavit praying for writ of mandamus to the D. I. O. S. to forward papers to UPSESSB for consideration.

( 11 ) LEARNED Single Judge dismissed the above writ-petition vide judgment and order dated 22. 2. 2004,which is under challenge in the present special appeal.

( 12 ) WE have heard the learned c