The District Inspector of Schools has sufficient jurisdiction to determine who is the valid Manager of a Committee of Management for administrative purposes, but this determination must be made in accordance with the principles of natural justice and with due consideration to the relevant provisions of the approved scheme of administration.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Vedic Higher Secondary School, Faizpur, Ninana district Meerut is an educational institution which is duly recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. This Institution receives grants-in aid from the State Government and is managed by a committee of management contemplated under a scheme of administration envisaged under the Regulations, which is duly approved by the competent authority.

2. The dispute raised by the respondent No. 2 with regard to the occurrence of casual vacancy in the office of the Manager in the aforesaid committee of management consequent upon the order dated 23-4-1992 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, granting recognition to the appellant No. 2 as Manager, who was alleged to have been elected filling up the said vacancy led to the passing of the order dated 14-8-92 whereunder the District Inspector of Schools coming to the conclusion that infact no casual vacancy had come into existence, cancelled his earlier order dated 23-4-1992 with a direction that the respondent No. 2 who had been recognised as Manager prior to the alleged accrual of vacancy shall continue as before. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellants, challenged the aforesaid order by means of a writ petition which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The petitioner appellants have now come up in special appeal for redress seeking reversal of the impugned judgment.

3. Briefly put, the case of the appellants is that a casual vacancy in the office of the Manager of the Committee of Management running and managing the institution came into existence on 23-3-1992 on account of passing of the motion of no confidence against the respondent No. 2 which resulted in his ouster from the office of the Manager. The appellants further assert that the committee of management had passed another resolution on the same day recommending for holding the respondent No. 2 ineligible to retain his membership of the general body of the society which recommendation was accepted by the general body of the society under its resolution dated 13-4-1992 with the result that the respondent No. 2 automatically ceased to hold the office of the Manager at least from the said date rendering the said office vacant. The vacancy caused in the office of the Manager was filled up according to the appellants, by enacting the appellant No. 2 to hold the said post vide resolution No. 4 adopted on 23-3-1992. It is asserted that the District Inspector of Schools granted recognition to the appellant No. 2 as Manager vide his order dated 23-4-1992 and as such he was entitled to continue to hold the said office for the remainder of the term of the committee of management

4. The respondent No. 2 has however, claimed that no casual vacancy in the office of the Manager had come into existence as alleged and he is continuing to hold the said post uninterruptedly. His case is that infact no meeting of either the committee of management of the general body was ever held and the resolutions relied upon by the appellants were never passed or adopted as alleged resulting in either his ouster from the office of the Manager or Installation of appellant No. 2 in the said office. He asserts that on coming to know of the order dated 23-4-1992, he brought his grievances to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools who after examining the materials and evidence led before him felt satisfied about the non accrual of the vacancy in the office of the Manager and consequently cancelled his order dated 23-4-1992 restoring the status-quo ante which action was not only within competence but was fully justified and calls for no interference by this Court. We have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2 as well as the learned Standing Counsel and have also carefully perused the record.

5. From the materials