JUDGMENT

S.J. Hyder, J. - On a motion made by the Committee of Management Adarsh Inter College. Manikpur though its Authorised Controller, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, this court issued rule nisi requiring the Director of Education, U.P. respondent 1 and the District Inspector of Schools, Banda, respondent 2 to show cause why a writ of certiorari may not be issued quashing the orders of respondent 2 dated June 5, 1979 and June 29, 1979. They were further required to show cause why a writ of mandamus may not be issued commanding the said respondents not to compel the petitioner to pay the salary of respondent 3.

2. The facts about which there is no controversy between the parties are that the last Committee of Management of the petitioner was elected on September 13, 1970 and in accordance with the Scheme of Administration the term of the said committee ended by tax of time on September 13, 1973. The post of a teacher was vacant at that time and a Selection Committee which had been constituted in accordance with the regulations contained in Chapter II of the regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act met on September 15, 1973 and recommended respondent 3 to fill the said vacancy. Recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Banda, here after referred to as the DIOS, by his order dated October 18,1973. On a complaint about alleged insubordination, negligence of duty and misconduct respondent 2 was suspended by the said Managing Committee on September 16, 1976. The DIOS approved the order of suspension by his order dated October 12, 1976. In the meanwhile a charge-sheet was submitted; against respondent 3 by the same Committee of Manage mention September 30, 1976 to which a reply was submitted by the said respondent on January 4, 1977. In bis reply to the charge-sheet respondent 3 stated that the Managing Committee which had been elected on 13-9-1970 had become functus officio and it was not competent to take any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer was thereafter appointed and he found that all the charges framed against respondent 3 had been duly reviewed. The Committee of Management which had been elected in the year 1970 passed a resolution dated April 5, 1977 recommending the termination of respondent's 3 services. There was some dispute amongst the members of the general body of the petitioner institution and three rival committees of the Management had started laying claims to act as Committee of Management and on 4-1 -1977 the State Government appointed an Authorised Controller to run the affairs of the institution under Section 16 D (4) of the Act. The DIOS by his order dated 15th November. 1977 refused to approve the resolution of the Committee of Management on 5-4 1977 on the ground that the Committee which had been elected on 13-9-1970 had become functus officio and was not competent to take any disciplinary proceedings against respondent 3. The Authorised Controller felt himself in a quandary on receiving the letter of the DIOS dated 15th November, 1977 and on November 26, 1977 he sent a letter to the DIOS enquiring about the position of Respondent 3 who had been appointed by the same Committee of Management after the expiry of its term. The D1 OS replied to the said letter by hi9 communication dated December 1, 1977 and in the said communication he only referred to his earlier letter dated November 15, 1977 and refrained from giving any answer to the query which had been put to him by the Authorised Controller in his letter dated November 26, 1977.

3. It is also not in controversy that the Authorised Controller after receiving tie communication of the District Inspector of Schools dated December 1, 1977 passed an order dated December 3, 1977. By means of the said order the Authorised Controller reinstated Respondent 3 and asked him to reply to the charges which were contained in the charge sheet dated September