May - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2All] Committee of Management V. District Minority Officer and others 61
himself withdraw the reimbursement and
maintenance grant and pay directly to duly
appointment teachers working in the
institution the rule 39 being relevant in quoted
below:
“KISI BHI PRAKAR KE SHASKIY
ANUDAN KE LIYE KEVAL STHAYI
MANYATA PRAPT MADRASE HE AHAR
HONGE. ANUDAN SUCHI PAR AANE KE
LIYE SANSTHA DWARA AAVEDAN
KARTE SAMAY YEH DEKHA JAYEGA
KE MANYATA KI SHARTON KA PURA
PALAN HO RAHA HAI. PRADATT
ANUDAN KA DURUPAYOG YA
DURVINIYOG KARNE ATHVA KOI
ANYA GAMBHIR TRUTI KARNE PAR
ANUDAN KA NILAMBAN KIYA JA
SAKEGA AUR ANUDAN KE
DHANRASHI SAMBANDHIT BASIC
SHIKSHA ADHIKARI DWARA AAHRIT
KARKE SIDHE SANSTHA KE VIDHIVAT
NIYJUKT VA KARYARAT
ADHYAPAKON KO UNKE VETANADI
KE DAY KE ROOP MEIN BANTI JA
SAKEGI” (Emphasis is ours).
4. The underlined portion of Rule 39 of
the Niyamawali aforestated clearly suggests
an implied power in the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari to decide at the administrative level
as to whether the salary is being paid by the
management to a lawfully appointed teacher
working in the institution. But for such power
it would not be feasible to ensure that the
maintenance in being utilized lawfully. The
power of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has since
been delegated to the Minority Welfare
Department with the Director of the Minority
Welfare at the Headquarter at Lucknow. In
such view of the matter it cannot be said that
the direction issued by the learned Single
Judge to the Director Minority Welfare to
decide the controversy in question in
tantamount to creation of a forum which is a
legislative function. In our considered opinion
where there exists an express or implied
power in an authority to traverse upon a
controversy, the argument that the court has
created a forum and has thereby usurp
legislative function does not arise.
5. In Committee of Management versus
District Inspector of School Meerut 1 a
Division Bench of this Court was called upon
to decide the question as to whether the
District Inspector of School has been vested
with the power to adjudicate upon claims of
rival contending managing committees. The
division bench held that though there was
express provision conferring such power on
the District Inspector of School, the latter did
have an implied power to decide on
administrative level as to who according to
him were validly elected office bearers of the
institution. The same view was reiterated in
Jaswant Singh and another versus District
Inspector of School and another 2 wherein it
has been clearly held that since the District
Inspector of School has to perform various
administrative function under the provisions
of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 and the
U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of teachers and other
Employees) Act, 1971 and since these duties
cannot be discharged by him unless he is in a
position to find out an administrative level as
to who are the real office bearers of the
college, he for this limited purpose must of
necessity satisfy as to who according to him
are the validly elected office bearers of the
institution.
6. Sri R.N. Singh placed reliable on
Supreme Court decision in Chiranjilal Srilal
Goenka versus Jasjit Singh and others 3
wherein it has been held that power to create
or enlarge the jurisdiction is legislative in
character. This legal proposition has not been
disputed by Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent. The
decision aforestated, however, does not
support the contention of the learned counsel
1 1978 AWC 124
2 1980 U.P.L.B.E.C.43.
3 J.T. 1993(2)S.C. 341.