JUDGMENT M.P. Kenia, J. - The learned standing counsel, on behalf of the respondent No. 2 (The District Inspector of Schools. Shahjahanpur) states that the counter-affidavit of Shri A.P Sharma to tho present petition is ready tho same having been affirmed on the 23rd of April, 1992, and a copy thereof having been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners on the same day, but he is, at the moment, unable to produce the same for being filed in the court. However, he has obtained the copy furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners, and tendered the same to the Court so that the matter may be proceeded with and has undertaken to put in the original, of which the copy has been taken, on file, for being filed as part of the record in this case, The learned Advocate for the petitioners tenders his affidavit in rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the aforesaid Shri A.P. Sharma, second respondent. 2. Mr. K.P. Agrawal, learned advocate for the applicant Dharmvir Gupta, has applied that the said Dharmvir Gupta be impleaded as party respondent to this case. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that although Mr. Dharmvir Gupta is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the present petition, the petitioners have no objection, to Mr. Dharmvir Gupta having impleaded as party respondent. In the circumstances, by consent of the parties, Mr. Dharmvir Gupta is impleaded as party respondent No. 3. The amendment to the petition to be carried out so as to include the name of Mr. Dharmvir Gupta was patty respondent No. 3. Mr. Agarwal has also tendered the counter-affidavit now in the present petition. The learned advooate for the petitioners states that there is no time enough to file any rejoinder affidavit to this counter-affidavit and that the matter be heard and disposed of finally and is required to be proceeded with as early as possible. In the circumstances, by consent of the parties the allegations contained in the aforesaid counter-affidavit of Mr. Dharmvir Gupta are treated as denied for the purposes of the present petition. As the counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavit have already been exchanged, with the consent of the parties and in accordance with the rules of this Court, the petition is taken up for heading and final disposal and is being disposed of by the present judgment. 3. Dharmvir Gupta are treated as denied for the purposes of the present petition. As the counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavit have already been exchanged, with the consent of the parties and in accordance with the rules of this Court, the petition is taken up for heading and final disposal and is being disposed of by the present judgment. 3. the petitioners, who are the Committee of Management of R.V.M. Inter College, Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur, through its Manager Shri Lal Prabhat Chandra and the aforesaid Manager Shri Lal Prabhat Chandra respectively, have filed this petition against the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad and the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur respectively, under the facts and circumstances briefly stated here in below. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners decided to dispense with the services of the then Principal of the R.V.M. Inter College, Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur, Shri Dharmvir Gupta, the third respondent herein and passed a resolution to that effect, which was required by the provisions of the law to be forwarded to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Servioes Commission, Allahabad, for its approval. The fact and circumstances, which preceded the forwarding of the petitioners' proposal for dismissal/termination of tho services of the aforesaid Sbri Dharmvir Gupta are not relevant to the Subject-matter of the present petition and need not be referred to. The starting point, for the purpose of the present petition, is the forwarding, by the petitioners, of their proposal for dismissal of the then Principal Shri Dharmvir Gupta to the second respondent (the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur), the proposal being dated the both of December, 1991 and having been sent received by the second respondent on the 28th of December, 1991. The procedure when a management of an institution decide to terminate the services of any of tho employees and send their resolution/decision to terminate the services for approval by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission, established under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, is set out under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations, 1985, which were framed in exercise of the powers under Sections 7 and 34 of the parent Act, aforesaid, with the previous approval of the Government, and came into force atonce. Under Regulation 3, the District Inspector of Schools has been associated with the Commission for purposes of discharging its duties under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the parent Act, under which cases are submitted to the Commission for approval by the Commission. Regulation 5 sets out the documents which are required to accompany - such cases submitted to the Commission for its approval through the District Inspector of Schools and the documents, a list whereof is to be found in regulation are required invariably to be submitted to the Commission, it being the function of tho District Inspector of Schools concerned to ensure that ail the requisite documents are in order and are to submitted in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 5. Regulation 6 provides that the District Inspector of Schools concerned shall ensure that the documents are complete, as required by Regulation S, and shall forward the same, ordinarily, within thirty days from the date of the receipt by him of the papers in the first instance from the management. Regulation 5 also empowers the District Inspector of Schools to point out the defects, if any, in the proceedings of the management. Regulation 7 provides for a power in the Commission to call for any documents considered by Commission relevant to the case from the management or from the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Finally, Regulation 8 provides that the Commission shall, after the consideration, approve or disapprove the punishment proposed, it also being open to the Commission to issue any directions in the case which it may deem fit and proper. 5. At all times relevant to the subject-matter of the petitioner one Shri A.P. Sharma has been functioning as tho District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur end continues to function as such. The said individual has been identified by name because in the light of the facts and circumstances, which have come to the notice of the Court, the Court has considered it appropriate to make be serrations with regard to the conduct of the aforesaid individual Shri A.P Sharma, now occupying the post of tho District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur. 6. It appears that the management's proposal with regard to the dismissal/termination of the services of the Principal Mr. 6. It appears that the management's proposal with regard to the dismissal/termination of the services of the Principal Mr. Dharmvir Gupta, which proposal dated the 15th of December, 1991, was admittedly received by the second respondent (District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur) on the 28th of December, 1991, was not forwarded by the second respondent to the Commission. Instead, he by a letter dated the 25th of January, 1992, addressed to the second petitioner, stated, inter alia, that the proposal in question bad been received from the petitioners by him on the 28th of December, 1991 and the same was being returned in its original as, in his opinion, there was propriety in forwarding the said papers to the Commission. It may be mentioned that except the said cryptic statement that there was no propriety in forwarding the said papers to the Commission, the second respondent did not choose to shed any light, whatsoever, as to what facts and circumstances or reasons occasioned or justified his aforesaid conclusion. The petitioners, in the circumstances, filed the present petition before the Court immediately and the same went through the steps of reporting on the 10th of February, 1992. At that stage the reliefs, prayed for by the petitioners, were, in substance and effect, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent (District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur) to forward the papers to the first respondent (Commission) without any further delay and for a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to decide the matter with regard to the approval of the dismissal of the services of the Principal in accordance with law. It appears that the petitioners had forwarded these papers in to the second respondent with their application dated the 30tb of January, 1992 (copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-VII to the petition). In the body of the said application dated the 30th of January, 1992, the petitioners quoted the relevant provision of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulation, 1985, and requested him to forthwith forward the papers to the Commission because as per the provision of the regulation, that time for forwarding the papers to the Commission expired on the 28'th of January, 1992. It appears that thegicoond respondent, now had second thoughts in the matter and forwarded the said papers to the Commission, but added a sentence to the effect that the termination of the services of Shri to by him the body of the 1988 dated the I of February, 1992, there was reference to his previous order dated the 3Ht of August, 1991, under which he had decided that the R.V.M. Inter College, Tilhar. did not have a recognised Committee of Management and that Shn Dharmvir Gopta was the principal of the said institution and that the aforesaid order dated the 31st of August, 1991 had been staved by an order dated the 8th of September, 1991, passed by the High Court of Judicature it Allahabad. 7. Aggrieved by this Conduct of the second respondent, the petitioners applied for permission to amend the petition, annexing copies of various documents, including the aforesaid document dated the 10th of February, 1992, by which the second respondent had forwarded the papers to the first respondent (Commission) with his personal views expressed and endorsed thereon. By the said amendment, which was allowed by this Court, the petitioners brought these subsequent developments on record of the petition and added a prayer by way of prayer for a writ of certiorari quashing the last sentence of the order/Communication dated the 10th of February, 1992, by which the second respondent (District Inspector of Schools) had forwarded the papers and had wrongfully included therein his recommendation for not dispensing with the services of the principal Shri Dharmvir Gupta. To complete the narration of facts, it may be mentioned that the first respondents (Commission) have found that the second respondent (District Inspector of Schools) had not properly discharged his duties and functions and by a letter dated the 27th of March, 1992 (copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-5 to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners) addressed by the Commission to the District Inspector of Schools, the Commission invited the letter's attention to the subject-matter before it and stated that the documents (pages 1 to 455) sent by the second respondent on the 10th of February, 1992, were being returned to him for him to initial the same and return them to tho Commission within seven days so as to enable the Commission to proceed with the further action to be taken in accordance with law thereon. It appears that upto date these papers have not reached the Commission. 8. It may be mentioned that on the 22nd of April 1992 when tho learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 prayed for time till Friday the 24tb of April, 1922, to file the second respondent's counter-affidavit. Time, as prayed for, was granted by the order dated the 22nd of April, 1992, which records, inter alia, that Shri A.P. Sharma, tho District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur, was present in Court and that the learned standing counsel had prayed for time till 24th of April, 1992, to enable the said Shri Sharma the second respondent to file his counter-affidavit. In the course of this order, it was specifically recorded as follows ; "In the course of discussion of this matter before the Court it has come out that the gravamen of the complaint against the second respondent herein is that whereas he had only to forward all the relevant papers relating to the dismissal of the Principal of R. V. M. Inter College, Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur, forwarded, in accordance with the provisions of the law, by the first petitioner Committee of Management of the aforesaid college to the first respondent U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad through the second respondent. The second respond eat. in the first instance, avoided forwarding them and eventually when pinned down with the specific communication requiring that the same he produced, exceeded his brief which was limited to cheeking up whether the relevant papers and materials, Which were required to be forwarded to the Commission were there, proceeded to add a sentence containing his recommendation to the Commission on the merits of the matter, which, under the relevant provision of law, he was neither required to do nor entitled to do, thus exhibiting an interest and participation in the matter, which was not herniating the occupant of the post of The District Inspector of Schools, whose approach to the matter must necessarily always be objective, impartial and non-partisan. One trusts that in the counter-affidavit this aspect of the matter will receive proper attention and treatment. Copy of the counter- affidavit to be furnished to the learned advocates for the petitioners by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday the 2frd of April, 1992. The matter to be put up as unlisted on Friday the 24th of April, 1992" 9. One trusts that in the counter-affidavit this aspect of the matter will receive proper attention and treatment. Copy of the counter- affidavit to be furnished to the learned advocates for the petitioners by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday the 2frd of April, 1992. The matter to be put up as unlisted on Friday the 24th of April, 1992" 9. Advocate Shri K.P. Agarwal's application on behalf of Shri Dharmvir Gupta for interim mandamus was also, by the aforesaid order directed to be taken up for consideration on the 24th of April, 1992. The above quoted passage was specifically inclined in the order dated the 22nd of April, 1992, so that Mr. A.P. Sharma's pointed attention may be drawn to the questions specifically exercising the mind of the Court in an attempt that the sets a fair opportunity to place before the Court his explanation or justification for his conduct as reflected by the facts and circumstances brought on the record of the Court. As to the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by the aforesaid Shri A.P. Sharma, the second respondent herein, and the Court's view thereon will be taken up a little later. 10. In support of his submission the learned advocate for the petitioners pointed out, inter alia, that the petitioners have found themselves harassed by the illegal and blatantly partisan attitude adopted by Sri A.P. Sharma, the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur, as reflected by the facts and circumstances that have come on record. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that under the provisions of the relevant regulations which have been summarises herein above, the District Inspector of Schools has been associated with the Commission to act as a post office as it were. Once the papers are forwarded by the management of an institution to the District Inspector of Schools for their being forwarded in turn to the Commission, all that the District Inspector of Schools required to do is to check whether each 8nd every document, required to be forwarded to the Commission, finds place in the papers and he has to forwarded them within thirty days it being open to him to point out defects, if any, in the proceedings of the management. This the District Inspector of Schools, the second respondent, has avoided doing, in the first instance, without any legal justification for the some and has contended himself by stating in the letter dated the 25th of January, 1992 (Annexure-6 to the petition) that he saw no propriety for forwarding the papers to the Commission and, as, such, he wag returning the papers in original to the manager. 11. Mr. S.S Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioners, pointed out that significantly the letter, aforesaid does not set-out what is the impropriety in forwarding the papers to the Commission. In Paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit in reply Stub A.P. Sharma (the second respondent) has submitted, that "the petitioner was not validity selected, therefore, the suspension order passed by the petitioner was also illegal and any order consequence of suspension order is also illegal, therefore, the answering respondent returned the paper in good faith. Mr. Chauhan pointed out that it is difficult to make out what Mr. Sharma means by the words that the petitioner was cot validly selected, as also why has chosen to record the order in question. Mr, Chauhan submitted that apart from the fact that it was not open to the aforesaid Mr. A.P. Sharma to arrive at such a decision and to act there on unilaterally. This seems to run contrary to order passed by this Court from time. Thus, Mr. Chauhan pointed out, by an order passed on the 31st of October, 1991, my brother Anshuman Singh, J. in a petition presented by the petitioners here in against the Deputy Director of Education, III Region, Bareilly, and others wherein the District Inspector of - Schools, Shahjahanpur, or the second respondent, and Shri Dharamvir Gupta was the seventh respondent, the respondents were restrained from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as manager of the college. It was the same individual Shri Lal Pratap Chandra, shown as the manager in the aforesaid petition, who is second petitioner herein, who had forwarded the papers in question to the second respondent, who in turn, was to forward the same to the Commission, Mr. Chauhan submitted that not only does the excuse put forward in the aforesaid counter-affidavit of Shri A.P. Sharma not hold water, the said excuse being given as justification in the manner in which the "said second respondent has acted is tantamount to contempt of this Courts. Mr. Chauhan submitted that not only does the excuse put forward in the aforesaid counter-affidavit of Shri A.P. Sharma not hold water, the said excuse being given as justification in the manner in which the "said second respondent has acted is tantamount to contempt of this Courts. Mr. Chauhan also pointed out that other orders had been passed by this Court, which had not been honoured or respected by the aforesaid Shri A P. Sharma. Thus on the 31st of August, 1991, the second respondent in the person of the said Shri A. P. Sharma had, inter alia, issued an order stating that there was no recognised committee of management of the R.V.M. Inter College and that the administration of the aforesaid college would be conducted by its principal Shri Dharmvir Gupta by his signature and that only Shri Dharmvir Gupta was the, recognised principal of the said college and only his signature would be accepted as the recognised signature of the principal, which order of the second respondent passed by him on the 3lst of August, 1991 was specifically stated by an order dated the 6th of September, 1991 by my brother M. L. Bhat, J. in a petitioner filed by the present petitioner against the Deputy Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly and others, wherein the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur, was the second respondent and Shri Dharmvir Gupta was the third respondent. Mr. Chsfuhan also referred to the fact that the aforesaid order dated the 6th of September, 1991 and another order dated the 11th of October, 1991 passed by this Court on the petitioner of one Shri Rajendra Singh, the then officiating principal, were not respected and complied, with the result that a petition had to be filed by the present petition (the order of the two petitioners being in reverse in the said petition against the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur and others, whether the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur was implied as party respondent No. 5 and Shri Dharmvir Gupta as party respondent No. 7, which petition was disposed of on the 12th of December, 1991, by the following order : "the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not complying with the order of this Court dated 6-9-1991 and 11-10-1991. This Court has already restrained the respondents from interfering with the functioning of Mr. Rajendra Singh, officiating principal. This Court has already restrained the respondents from interfering with the functioning of Mr. Rajendra Singh, officiating principal. It is also alleged in the petition that the respondent No. 7, who is under Buspensioi, is creating hurdles in the smooth functioning of the college the respondents are directed to ensure that the orders of this Court sure fully complied with and there is no hindrance in the smooth functioning of the college. With this direction the writ petition is finally disposed of." 12. Mr. Chauhan also stated that in respect of the violation of the orders of this Court, as mentioned here in above, a contempt petition had been filed against Shri A.P. Sharma (the second respondent herein) being Contempt Petition No 1374 of 1991, wherein this Court has been pleased to issue notice to the said Shri A.P. Sharma, District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur, who has filed his counter-affidavit therein. Mr. Chauhan pointed out from the deny of the aforesaid counter-affidavit filed by Shri A.P. Sharma, filed in the said contempt petition, by referring to Paragraph 16, that, "So far as the question of Managership is concerned, it is stated that the applicant Lal Pratap Chandra is functioning as Manager of the institution." Mr. Chauhan also pointed out passages from Paragraph 18 of the said counter-affidavit, where it was, Inter alia, stated that the salary bills signed by officiating Principal Rajendra Singh are honoured and passed by the deponent and in Paragraph 2i of the same affidavit wherein it is stated that. "It is stated that, as stated earlier, due to the signatures of two rival Principal certain legal disputes were arose. Therefore, the deponent took time in releasing payments...............It is made clear that there is no interference from the side of the deponent in the functioning of the officiating principal Rajendra Singb, as well as the manager of the institution " Mr. Therefore, the deponent took time in releasing payments...............It is made clear that there is no interference from the side of the deponent in the functioning of the officiating principal Rajendra Singb, as well as the manager of the institution " Mr. Chauhan submitted that the above documents reflecting the record of this Court in various matters clearly indicate that the aforesaid Shri A.P. Sharma, District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur (the second respondent herein) has acted in a blatantly partisan manner and in his attempt to favour Shri Dharmvir Gupta, who had initially been suspended and who had since been removed from service, the papers with regard where to be forwarded to the Commission and has from time to time, not only interfered with the working of the petitioner in contravention of the orders passed by different Hon'ble Judge of this Court, but has tried his utmost, without any reasonable justification, whatsoever, to delay matters as much as possible. Mr. Chauhan submitted that this conduct on the part of the second respondent (District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur) is wholly unbecoming and improper and merits appropriate comment from Court. 13. Mr. Chauhan further submitted that as it obvious from the bare reading of the regulations cited here in above all that the second respondent had to do was to forward the appropriate papers to the commission after ensuring that all the appropriate papers, as required by regulations, were being duly forwarded. Of course, it was open to the second respondent to point out defects, if any, in the proceedings of the management. Being unable to do so instead of pointing out any defects Shri A.P. Sharma has chosen to add his personal recommendation suggesting that the termination of Shri Dharmvir Gupta does not deserve to a approved. This Mr. Chauhan submitted, the second respondent had no business to so. Mr. Chauhan submitted that there was no authority in law entitling the second respondent to make any such recommendation or was to form any view personally, much less to commend the same to the commission for their consumption and adoption. The very fact Mr. This Mr. Chauhan submitted, the second respondent had no business to so. Mr. Chauhan submitted that there was no authority in law entitling the second respondent to make any such recommendation or was to form any view personally, much less to commend the same to the commission for their consumption and adoption. The very fact Mr. Chauhan submitted, that the second respondent's letter dated the 10th of February, 1992, does not point-out any single defect in the proceed in s of the management is significant and it is a clear indication of the fact that when unable' to point out any defect in the proceedings, Mr. Sharma, the second respondent, in his partisan attitude sought to influence the first respondent. Commission, with his recommendation that the order of termination be not approved. Mr. Chauhan submitted that, in the fact and circumstances disclosed before the Court and on the position in law as dearly spelt out by the regulations, it is clear that the second respondent had only to forward the relevant papers to the first respondent ; that he was not entitled to make any recommendations to the first respondent (Commission); that the second respondent has sated in a wholly mala fide, improper and illegal manner and that not only should there be an appropriate direction from this Court to ensure that all the appropriate papers are duly forwarded to the Commission, but a writ of certiorari or any other writ be also issued quashing from the letter dated the 10th of February, 1992 the recommodation of the second respondent to the first respondent suggesting that the first respondent be pleased not to approve of the termination forwarded by the petitioner to the first respondent through the second respondent. On a careful consideration of the above, this Court is inclined to accept all the above submissions of the petitioner. The standing counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had little to express as and by way of explanation with regard to the conduct of the second respondent and indeed found himself admitting that it is difficult to Justify the same Mr. The standing counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had little to express as and by way of explanation with regard to the conduct of the second respondent and indeed found himself admitting that it is difficult to Justify the same Mr. K.P. Agarwal, on behalf of the newly added third respondent Shri Dharmvir Gupta, with his usual fairness, suggested that this is fit and proper case that the papers to face duly forwarded to the first respondent (Commission) for the first respondent to dispose of the same in accordance with law and that it was fit and appropriate that the recommendation illegally included by the second respondent in his letter dated the 10th of February, 1992, to the Commission be quashed and set aside. 14. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the second respondent, the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur, in the person of Mr. A.P. Sharma, has behaved in a blatantly partisan and dilatory manner through-out and his conduct and attitude deserve to be condemned. In his very first letter of the 25th of January, 1992 refusing to forward the papers sent by the petitioners to him to be forwarded to the first respondent (Commission), the said Shri A.P. Sharma does not come out in a for the right clear cut and unequivocal and manner as to why he has chose a not to forward the papers. Instead he has taken shelter behind vegue phraseology that he finds no propriety in forwarding the papers the Commission. One wonders that the petitioner could have made out all this round about the vague statement. One also wonders why, if this was the attitude on the 25th of January, 1992 a change of heart came over the second respondent on the 10th February, 1992 when he chose to forward the papers. Again there is no explanation, whatsoever, forthcoming in spite of specific opportunity extended to the second respondent as to what occasioned or justified his recommendation to the first respondent (Commission) that the order of termination be not approved or what vested power or authority did he have in law to make him feel justified in so doing. Even his conduct thereafter has been, to say the least, despicable. In the first instance he did not forward the papers. Even his conduct thereafter has been, to say the least, despicable. In the first instance he did not forward the papers. Thereafter he forwarded the papers with the recommendation, which was just not permissible to do, but he forwarded the papers without initiating them as he was bound to do. Surely, this must not have been bis first occasion when Mr. Sharma have forwarded such papers to the Commission. Under the relevant provisions of the regulations in question it became necessary to the Commission to return the communication dated the 25th of January, 1992 that he omitted to initial the papers and, therefore, sent them back for initialling. It is absolutely high time that the said papers be duly sent back as directed by the first respondent (Commission). The second respondent ss the District Inspector of Schools is vested with certain powers and authorities under the relevant provision of the law, but these powers are in the nature of sacred trust never intended to be iris-used or abused as has been found to be done by the second respondent. What actions the Director of Education, Uttar Prsdesh or the authorities concerned deem fit and appropriate to initiate and adopt against the said Shri A.P. Sbarma, District Inspector of Schools Shahjahanpur, is for the authorities concerned to consider and decide, but this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it would be perilous and, in fact, it would be tantamount the travesty of justice to permit Shri A.P. Sharma to take any further part in the controversy/controversies with regard to the said institute, namely, R.V.M. Inter College, TiSbar, District Shahjahanpur. It is the grossly, improper end illegal conduct of the said Shri A.P. Sharma, the second respondent herein, which has also occasioned a good many proceedings to be initiated to whether the said Shri Sharma can be stated to be guilty of contempt of the various orders passed by the Court is a matter for consideration by the Court, when considering and disposing of the Contempt Petition No. 1374 of 1991 and this Court, obviously, has no occasion to express any opinion thereon. This Court similarly has no occasion to either go into the various controversies with regard to the management of the aforesaid institution or to pronounce thereon, the scope of the present petition being essentially limited to the four corners of the controversy as reflected by the pleadings herein. 15. In the circumstances the petition is allowed The second respondent is ordered and directed to forthwith forward to the first respondent all the relevant papers sent to them by the petitioners, for forwarding to the first respondent duly initialled an required by the first respondent by tho order dated the 27th of March, 1992, without any further delay and, in any case, within four days of the service of a certified copy of this order upon him. 16. This Court also quashes and sets aside the recommendation contained in the last sentence of the second respondent's letter to the first respondent dated the 10th February, 1992, and directs the fast respondents to decide and determine the matter of the grant or refusal of its approval to the proposal of the petitioner for terminating dispensing with the services of the aforesaid Shri Dharmvir Gupta without reference either to the said recommendation, contained in the last sentence of the letter aforesaid, or being influenced by the rest of the contents of the said letter with regard to the absence of a formally recognised Committee of Management or with regard to Shri Dharmvir Gupta being the recognised principal of the institution. The first respondents (Commission) are expected to dispose of this matter before them as expeditiously as possible in any case, within a period of two month of the receipt of the papers from the second respondent or within a period of two month from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment order, whichever is later. 17. Coming to the question of the costs of this petition, it is obvious that this petition has come to be occasioned by the., improper, illegal and unjustified actions and dilatory tactics on the part of the second respondent herein and but for the same the matter would have been disposed of one way or the other in accordance with the provisions of the law much earlier. In the course of the discussion of various aspects of the petition this Court has been unable to find and justification or any saving grace on the part of Mr. A.P. Sharma, who, at all relevant times, was and continues to be the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur. In the circumstances it is St and appropriate that Mr. Sharma personally be ordered and directed to bear and pay the petitioners' costs of the present petition quantified at rupees two thousand. Precedent in this behalf are not lacking and it is not necessary to refer to them. The other respondents in the matter shall bear their owns costs of the petition.