JUDGMENT
O.P. Garg, J.
1. Surjeet Singh, respondent No. 3 was admittedly elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of Sri Guru Govind Singh Inter College, Govind Nagar, Model Town, Bareilly in the last election, which was held on 8.5.1996. This Committee of Management was duly recognised by the District Inspector of Schools (for short ‘D.I.O.S.’) on 24.6.1996. Sardar H.S. Sobti was elected as President but was subsequently substituted by Sardar Mela Singh. It is alleged that on 15.8.1997. Surjeet Singh voluntarily resigned from the post of Manager. The resignation of Surjeet Singh was accepted by the Committee of Management in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 and in the said meeting, Kamal Jeet Singh, petitioner No. 2 was appointed/elected as Manager for the rest of the term of the Committee. His signatures were attested by the D.I.O.S. on 17.1.1998. In this manner, Kamaljeet Singh continued to work as Manager of the Committee of Management. On 18.5.1998, Surjeet Singh
respondent No. 3 sent a letter to D.I.O.S. alleging that he has gained health and after recovery has joined on the post of Manager in pursuance of the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 7th May, 1998. The D.I.O.S. attested the signatures of Surjeet Singh respondent No. 3 on 18.6.1998. The petitioners represented to the D.I.O.S. that no meeting was held on 7.5.1998 and that the proceedings of the Committee as set up by Surjeet Singh are forged and fictitious and that Kamaljeet Singh continues to be the Manager. The D.I.O.S. withdrew the order dated 18 6.1998″ and again attested the signatures of Kamaljeet Singh. Therefore, at the level of the D.I.O.S. the Committee of Management of which Kamaljeet Singh petitioner No. 2 was the Manager, continued to be recognised.
2. The deposed Manager–Surjeet Singh made approach to the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly–respondent No. 1 who by order dated 13.7.1998, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the D.I.O.S. recognising the signatures of Kamaljeet Singh and directed that the signatures of Surjeet Singh who continues to be the Manager should be re-attested by the D.I.O.S. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the Joint Director, the D.I.O.S. again attested the signatures of Surjeet Singh on 16.7.1998, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
3. By means of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the impugned order dated 13.7.1998, Annexure-9 passed by the Joint Director of Education and the consequential order dated 16.7.1998, Annexure-1, passed by the D.I.O.S. have been challenged primarily on the ground that when once Surjeet Singh has resigned from his post of Managership voluntarily, he could not be-foisted as Manager over the Committee of Management unless he is duty elected again ; that Kamaljeet Singh was duly elected and appointed as the Manager on 10.12.1997 for the remaining term of the Committee of Management and, therefore, his period cannot be curtailed by the illegal order of the Joint Director. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Surjeet Singh repelling the above allegations and maintaining that though he had resigned from the post of Manager, his resignation was not accepted by the Committee of Management and, therefore, he had requested the President of the Committee to relieve him of the responsibilities of the post of Manager for a period of six months as he was not able to perform his duties on grounds of health. Accordingly, in his absence. Kamaljeet Singh was appointed as an officiating (Karyawahak) Manager, who was to remain in office till such period Surjeet Singh resumed his duties. The impugned order of Joint Director has been termed to be within legal and administrative limits.
4. Heard Sri. R.N. Singh. Senior Advocate assisted by S./Sri G.K. Singh and A.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Verma assisted by Sri Sidhartha Verma on behalf of the respondents.
5. To begin with, it may be mentioned that the respondent No. 3–Sardar Surjeet Singh–has admittedly been the Manager of the Committee of Management for the last about l/4th century. He was admittedly elected as Manager of the Committee in the meeting held on 8.5.1996. He assumed the charge as Manager and his signatures were admittedly verified. The case of the petitioners is that Sardar Surjeet Singh voluntarily resigned from the post on 15.8.1997. On behalf of the respondent No. 3, it was urged that the resignation tendered by him (Sardar Surjeet Singh) was not accepted and consequently, he had to proceed on leave for a period of six months and in the meeting held on 10.12.1997, it was resolved that the petitioner No. 2 Kamaljeet Singh will officiate in the absence of Sardar Surjeet Singh aid accordingly, the signatures of Kamaljeet Singh petitioner No. 2 were attested. Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the fact that Sardar Surjeet Singh submitted his resignation cannot be disputed as he has clearly mentioned in his affidavit and in the letters addressed to the D.I.O.S. that he had resigned and that the Committee of Management has accepted his resignation. It was also urged that it was a case in which the resignation was not required to be formally accepted. In support of his contention. Sri R. N. Singh placed reliance on Daya Ram Bhargava v. State of U. P., 1969 ALJ 341, wherein it was observed that where a person voluntarily becomes a member of the Managing Committee of an educational institution and renders honorary service, his resignation made ‘with immediate effect’ does not require any acceptance and the resignation would become effective from the dale from which it is sought to be made effective. Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Sardar Surjeet Singh urged that there is no letter of resignation submitted by Sardar Surjeet Singh and in any case, the letter dated 12.12.1997, Annexure-2, and the communication by Sardar Surjeet Singh, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition indicating that Kamaljeet Singh had taken over from him on 13.1.1998 are clearly in opposition of the facts as obtained on record. My impression of the matter is that, as a matter of fact and reality, Sardar Surjeet Singh has manifested his intention to tender his resignation from the post of Manager but a formal letter of resignation was not submitted by him. He had submitted an application, Annexure-C.A. 1A, to the President on 15.8.1997 itself that on account of his personal and domestic reasons, he is not in a position to discharge his functions as Manager and, therefore, he may be granted leave for a period of six months. This application came to be considered in the meeting dated 10.12.1997, proceedings of which are contained in Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. This emergent meeting was attended by 8 members besides a special invitee headed by Mela Singh, President, Resolution No. 2 adopted in the said meeting clearly mentions that the Committee had insisted that ‘Sardar Surjeet Singh may continue to work and he may take assistance of Sardar Jagjeet Singh. Sardar Jagjeet Singh was not aggreable to it, consequently, it was resolved that Kamaljeet Singh be appointed as a stop-gap arrangement (to quote the exact words–Kam Chalau Prabandhak). It was further resolved that Kamaljeet Singh petitioner No. 2 be appointed as officiating Manager till 31.3.1998 and the D.I.O.S. be informed accordingly. By her letter dated 27.1.1998, Smt. Uma Rani, D.I.O.S., Bareilly had attested the signatures of Kamaljeet Singh treating him to be a Karyawahak Prabandhak in place of Sardar Surjeet Singh. It is true that in case Sardar Surjeet Singh had tendered his resignation, it was not required to be accepted formally. As said above, the resignation of Sardar Surjeet Singh is not on record. It is not known whether he had tendered his resignation, which was to come into force with immediate effect or from a subsequent date. The theory of tendering of resignation by Sardar Surjeet Singh is belied by the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the documents-C.A. 1, C.A. 1A, C.A. 2 and the other relevant papers, which would be discussed presently.
6. Sardar Surjeet Singh came to resume his duties after convalescence and on 7.5.1998, a resolution No. 3 was adopted in the meeting presided over by Sri Mela Ram, President that Sardar Surjeet Singh shall continue to function as Manager. Naturally, the officiating arrangement of Kamaljeet Singh, as Manager, came to an end no sooner Sardar Surjeet Singh turned up to join. The proceedings of the meeting dated 7.5.1998 were submitted before the D.I.O.S. for re-attesting the signatures of Sardar Surjeet Singh. It was done on 18.5.1998 as would be evident from Annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit. It appears that Kamal Jeet Singh raised an objection to the order dated 18.5.1998 and on 26.6.1998 the D.I.O.S. recalled its order dated 18.5.1998 and reattested the signatures of Kamaljeet Singh. The validity of the meeting dated 7.5.1998 was challenged by the petitioners. Sardar Surjeet Singh filed an application, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-C.A. 4 to the counter-affidavit, in which he has categorically mentioned that he never tendered his resignation and that a meeting was held on 7.5.1998 in which he was permitted to join and the officiating arrangement, consequently, came to an end. In support of this application before the D.I.O.S., Sardar Surjeet Singh filed his own affidavit, besides the affidavits of six other persons/members of the Committee of Management whose names are Pratipal Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Gyan Singh Juneja, Jagatpal Singh. S.S. Mewat and Sarnam Singh. The D.I.O.S. referred these affidavits and objection of Sardar Surjeet Singh to the President of the Committee of Management for decision.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in view of the provisions contained in para 23 of the Scheme of Administration, the President is the person competent to decide the dispute regarding membership of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. A copy of the Scheme of Administration has been filed as Armexure-1 to the writ petition. A thorough study of para 23 (ka) of the Scheme of Administration would indicate that the President is competent to resolve the dispute with regard to question whether any person has been elected as member of an office bearer to the Society or the General Body and that the decision of the President shall be final. In the instant case, the question of membership or the election of Sardar Surjeet Singh as Manager was not in dispute. As said above. Sardar Surjeet Singh was admittedly member of the Committee of Management and was, in fact, Manager, duly elected in the meeting of 8.5.1996. Therefore, the dispute raised in the present petition could not be referred by the D.I.O.S. to the President as it did not fall within the scope of the dispute, as contemplateed in para 23 of the Scheme of Administration. The effort of the D.I.O.S. to resolve the dispute through the agency of the President was otiose.
8. The fact of the matter is that Sardar Surjeet Singh never tendered his resignation from the post of Manager. He had simply went on leave, or say, wanted to remain absent for a period of six months or so on account of his own personal reasons. His request to remain absent was reluctantly accepted by the Committee in the meeting held on 10.12.1997 and an alternative stop-gap arrangement, which was intended to last on the rejoining of Sardar Surjeet Singh was made by appointing in an officiating capacity Sri Kamaljeet Singh, as Manager.
9. After resumption of the duty as Manager by Sardar Surjeet Singh, the D.I.O.S. by order dated 18.5.1998 had attested the signatures of Sardar Surjeet Singh. It appears that under certain pressure, she had to review and recall her order dated 18.5.1998. It is accepted at all hands that the D.I.O.S. has no power to review her own orders unless it is shown that some fraud has been practised or misrepresentation has taken place. Not only this, it has been consistently held by this Court that the powers of D.I.O.S. to recognise a particular Committee and to attest the signatures of its Manager are purely of administrative nature. Since the D.I.O.S. has to perform various administrative functions of statutory character in collaboration with the Management of High School and Intermediate Colleges and since these duties cannot be discharged by him/her unless he/she is in a position to find out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the college, he/she for this limited purpose must, of necessity, satisfy himself/herself as to how, according to him/her are the validly elected office bearers of the institution. This satisfaction has to be reached by the District Inspector of Schools by making a summary enquiry on an administrative level. Against these administrative orders passed by the D.I.O.S., the aggrieved party, on the administrative side, may approach the higher supervisory functionary. The Deputy/Joint Director of Education undoubtedly is an authority superior to D.I.O.S. The Joint Director of Education has to exercise supervisory powers and for all practical purposes, both legally and factually, the D.I.O.S. is subordinate to him. Now, the question is whether, if the D.I.O.S. has committed any mistake in passing an order on administrative level, should it be allowed to continue unrectified or the superior authority be taken to be empowered to step in to correct the mistake. This aspect of the matter came to be considered in the case of Shardar Husain v. Deputy Director of Education, XIIth Region, Moradabad and others, 1995 All CJ 1244, in which it has been held that the orders passed by the D.I.O.S. in his administrative capacity are always subject to supervisory control of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. In that case also, the order passed by the D.I.O.S. on administrative side was reversed by the Deputy Director of Education by passing another administrative order in his supervisory jurisdiction. Shardar Hussain’s case (supra), has not been dissented from by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee, of Management, Tagore Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pawaraganj, Farrukhabad v. D.I.O.S., Farrukhabad and Others, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 429. In carrying on the general administration of the State, executive functions are performed by an hierarchy of the officers who have to perform their respective functions according to rule of law. The hierarchy of civil service is bound by the norms and discipline and violation of directions of superiors by the subordinates amounts to insubordination and misconduct for one simple reason that no Government can function in case indiscipline and insubordination are given up. It will lead to anarchy and disaster, to the entire fabric and democratic structure and rule of law if the unsustainable orders passed by the subordinate officers are not allowed to be corrected by superior and higher functionaries. In the instant case, the Joint Director of Education has rightly come to the conclusion that the D.I.O.S. had not recalled the order dated 18.5.1998 after applying her mind to the facts, which were placed before her and that she had recalled the aforesaid order in a most cursory and perfunctory manner. I am also in agreement with the Joint Director of Education that the order dated 18.5.1998 by which the signatures of Sardar Surjeet Singh were re-attested on his resumption of duties of Manager, was not required to be interfered in a casual manner on the objection of Kamaljeet Singh, petitioner No. 2.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that an unsavoury feature, which stares at our face, is that the Joint Director had not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 13.7.1998, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, to Kamaljeet Singh, the affected party. I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. The plea that there has been flagrant violation of audi alteram partem has to be confined to certain extents. It cannot be an unbriddled plea so that it may be planted in every matter. After perusing the documents, particularly, the resolution of the Committee of Management and verification of facts, it was well-established before the Joint Director of Education that Kamaljeet Singh had entered the office of Manager only as a stop-gap arrangement during the absence of Sardar Surjeet Singh and that on the resumption of duties by Sardar Surjeet Singh, Kamal Jeet Singh, of necessity had to make exit. He did not have any indefeasible right to continue in office even after jointing of the duties as Manager by Sardar Surjeet Singh. In these circumstances, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to Kamaljeet Singh as the limited period for which he was appointed as Manager in a temporary vacancy during the absence of Sardar Surjeet Singh had come to an end. Kamaljeet Singh was left with no rights on the post, and consequently, he was not required to be heard.
11. In the result, I find that by passing the impugned order dated 13.7.1998. Annexure-9 to the writ petition, the Joint Director of Education has committed no illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Joint Director of Education has the authority, capacity and jurisdiction to set aside the wrong, casual and imperfect orders passed by the D.I.O.S. who is his subordinate. The Joint Director of Education exercises supervisory control over D.I.O.S. and he should not feel shy in correcting the mistakes committed by the D.I.O.S. on administrative level. The writ petition, therefore, turns out to be without any merits and substance and is liable to be dismissed.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.