JUDGMENT
Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. It is not necessary to call for counter affidavit from the respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court in the present writ petition.
2. The Committee of Management of Sri Krishna High School, Badaun has filed this writ petition against the notice issued by the District Inspector of Schools dated 24th September, 2004 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner had not complied with the directions issued by the District Inspector of Schools contained in the letter dated 28th October, 1993 inasmuch as necessary amendments in the Scheme of Administration have not been proposed in accordance with the provisons of Sectionl6-CC of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafer referred to as the Act). In view of the aforesaid, it has been directed that the petitioner may show-cause as to why appropriate proceedings for appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak be not initiated.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the factual foundation laid in the impugned order for issuing the show-cause notice is incorrect inasmuch as the Committee of Management has already submitted proposals in compliance of the provisions of Section 16-CC of the Act before the Joint Director of Education on 6th April, 2004. The Joint Director of Education has not passed any order on the said amendments proposed by the Committee of Management. It is further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has no authority under law to issue notice for initiating the proceedings for non-compliance of the amended provision of Section 16-CC of the Act inasmuch as if the institution docs not carry out the necessary amendments in the Scheme of Administration as required under the povision of Section 16-CC, the power to take action under Section 16-B, clause (3) is conferrred up on the Joint Director of Education alone. It is further contended that the notice issued by the District Inspector of Schools is without authority of law and therefore, the said notice may be set aside.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the provisions of the Act. In view of the statement made by the petitioner in the writ petition, to the effect that the petitioner had already submitted a proposal for necessary amendments in the Scheme of Administration to bring the same in confirmity with the provisions of Section 16-A read with III Schedule appended to the Act, and the aforesaid proposed amendments are still engaging the attention of the Joint Director of Education with respect thereto no action has been taken by the Regional Joint Director of Education. The question of notice being issued by the District Inspector of Schools does not arise. Even otherwise, in view of the Section 16-B (3) or the Act, it is the Director, who can take action for non-compliance of the direction for amendment of the Scheme of Administration under Section 16-CC. The said Section 16-B (3) of the Act reads as follows :
“If the Scheme of Administration is not submitted within the time allowed, the Director shall take action in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 16-D.”
5. In view of the above the notice issued by the District Inspector of Schools is without jurisdiction. The notice issued by the District Inspector of Schools is, accordingly, quashed. It is further directed that the Joint Director of Education shall take appropriate decision on the proposal submitted by the Comittee of Management for amendment in the Scheme of Administration dated 6th November, 2002 at the earliest possible, preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
6. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of finally.