JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner was appointed as a Daftari which is a Class IV post in Santlal Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Devipur, district Gorakhpur. It is his case that he proceeded on leave in November, 80 in connection with his wifes illness and that when he returned to join his duties in February, 1981, he was not allowed to do so by the principal of the institution. The petitioner further states that the principal asked him to sign certain papers which has been subsequently utilised as a letter of resignation purporting to have been written by the petitioner. The 'petitioner made a complaint to the Committee of Management against the action of the Principal in terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of the alleged resignation by him. Under Regulation 31 of Chapter 111 of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, an appeal from the order of termination passed by the Principal in the case of Class IV employee lies before the Committee of Management. Accordingly, the petitioners representation/appeal came up for consideration before the Committee of Management of which Sitaram Sharma was the President the respondents. and Azimullah, the Manager. The Committee of Management considered the case of the petitioner and by its resolution, dated 10-8-1981 allowed the petitioners appeal and directed that he be reinstated as Daftari. During the pendency of the appeal, however, the petitioner had made a representation before the District Inspector of Schools complaining that on account of dispute between two rival Committees, his appeal was not decided. This representation was used by the District Inspector of Schools as an application inviting his decision in terms of Regulation 31 of Chapter III, which provides that in case the Committee of Management does not decide the appeal of a Class IV employee it would be open to the latter to approach the District Inspector of Schools directly by way of a representation which the District Inspector of Schools shall dispose of in accordance with law. 2. Meanwhile, prior to the decision of the District Inspector of Schools by his order, dated 14-8-1981, the dispute between the two rival Committee of Management had been resolved in favour of the Committee headed by Sitaram Sharma. This fact had been brought to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools in writing on 12-8-1981. 2. Meanwhile, prior to the decision of the District Inspector of Schools by his order, dated 14-8-1981, the dispute between the two rival Committee of Management had been resolved in favour of the Committee headed by Sitaram Sharma. This fact had been brought to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools in writing on 12-8-1981. Ignoring this information and the further fact that the Committee of Management headed by Sitaram Sharma had already allowed the appeal of the petitioner on 10-8-1981, the District Inspector of Schools endorsed the decision of the Principal of the institution and set aside the resolution of the Committee of Management headed by Sitaram Sharma on the ground that the Committee was not lawfully constituted Committee of Management of the Institution. 3. It is against the aforesaid order dated 14-8-1981 that this petition is directed. For the petitioner Sri V.B. Khare has submitted two points for my consideration : "First, that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders inasmuch as the Committee of Management which had been recognised by the Deputy Director of Education had already allowed the appeal of the petitioner earlier on 10-8-1981. Second, that in any case, the decision of the District Inspector of Schools that the Committee of Management headed by Sitaram Sharma was not lawfully constituted Committee of Management is manifestly unsustainable." 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am clearly of the opinion that both these contentions are we well founded and must be accepted. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is apparent that Regulation 31 merely provides an additional remedy to the employee to approach the District Inspector of Schools directly to decide the matter in dispute. But this gives power to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the appeal only if the Committee of Management has not already decided the appeal. The provision is, to my mind, directly in nature which does not compel the District Inspector of Schools to decide the appeal even if the Committee of Management has already deal with the matter and disposed of the appeal in favour of the employee in the meantime. That being so, the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, dated 14-1-01981 (Annexure-3) is clearly without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed on this preliminary ground alone. That being so, the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, dated 14-1-01981 (Annexure-3) is clearly without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed on this preliminary ground alone. 5. The second ground is equally well founded. The District Inspector of Schools had refused to recognise the Committee of Management headed by Sitaram Sharma on the ground that the elections had not been validly conducted. This order of the District Inspector of Schools has, however, set aside by the Deputy Director of Education who held that the elections at which Sitaram Sharma was elected as Prescient and Azimullah as the Manager were perfectly valid. The decision of the Deputy Director of Education was challenged by the earlier committee by Writ Petition No. 593 of 1982 which was dismissed. 6. The result was that the Committee of Management headed by Sitaram Sharma was the Commit duly recognised on the relevant date by the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Director of Education. The decision of the District Inspector of Schools, is thus not sustainable even on merits. The entire decision of the District Inspector of Schools is founded on the premise that the Committee of Management of Sitaram Sharma was not a validly constituted Committee of Management and consequently, its decision, dated 10-8-1981 was null and void. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14-8-1981 (Annexure-13) communicated to the petitioner on 3-10-1981 is quashed and the resolution of the Committee of Management, dated 10-8 1981 as well as the letter of the Manager, dated 12-8-1981 issued in pursuance of the resolution are restored. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including continuity of service, arrears of salary etc. No order as to costs.