R. H. ZAIDI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 3427 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner, Committee of Management of Sri Hanumant Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi challenging the validity of the orders dated 17-1-1990 and 2-2- 1990 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi suspending the grant in aid of Shri Hanumant Sanskrit Vidyalaya Varanasi (hereinafter referrer to as the colleges) and permitting the District Inspector of Schools to withdraw the amount of grant in aid and to disburse the salaries to the members of the staff of the institution. The aforesaid cases were heard on 10-10-1995 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I have dictated the operative portion of the judgment in the Court, reasons for the said order the (sic) directed to follow. Now I proceed to state reasons for the aforesaid order dated 10-10-1995. 2. The college is a Sanskrit Vidyalaya recognised under the provisions of U. P. In termediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and are applicable to the same. The management of the college is vested in the Committee of Management which is constituted under the provisions of duly approved scheme of administration. The election of the office bearer and mem bers of the Committee of Management was held in the year 1984 in which Swami Hanuman Das was elected as the President and Shri Dangoor Das and Lallan Diwedi as the Manager of the Committee of Manage ment. The said Committee of Management functioned smoothly and on expiry of its term the dispute arose between two rival committee. One claim election on 8-11-1987 and other on 8-1-1989. The dispute was referred to the Deputy Director of Education, who by means of his order dated 1-12-1989 discarded both aforesaid elec tions and directed the Committee of Management, which was elected in the year 1984 to continue, the said committee was also asked to hold the election of office bearers and members in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dated 1-12-1989 the signatures of the manager of the committee elected in the year 1989 were attested, the said committee according to the petitioner took steps for holding the elections. In the meanwhile, one Shri Narendra Tiwari, the Principal of the Col lege and Shri Mahendra Pandey, the Assis tant Teacher were also suspended. In pursuance of the order dated 1-12-1989 the signatures of the manager of the committee elected in the year 1989 were attested, the said committee according to the petitioner took steps for holding the elections. In the meanwhile, one Shri Narendra Tiwari, the Principal of the Col lege and Shri Mahendra Pandey, the Assis tant Teacher were also suspended. The petitioners have sought guidance from the Deputy Director of Education with regard to the payment of salary of the aforesaid suspended Principal and Assistant teacher, who were under suspension. In the meanwhile, the respondent no. 2 issued the notice under paragraphs 314 of the Educa tion Code (sic), which was duly replied by the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 there after, passed the impugned orders on the basis of fresh charges about which the petitioners were never afforded an oppor tunity to explain, whereby the grant in aid of the college was suspended and the accounts of the college were placed under single operation and the District Inspector of Schools was permitted to disburse the salary of the teaching and non-teaching members of the staff of the college. It is also relevant to state that, in the meanwhile, the aforesaid Principal and the Assistant teacher were dismissed from services after following the procedure prescribed under the law and the papers were submitted before the Vice Chancellor of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vidyaalaya, Varanasi seeking approval of the dismissal of the aforesaid Principal and teacher. Since the Vice Chancellor failed to pass any order on the papers submitted by the Committee of Management, the com mittee was obliged to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34793 of 1993 for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Vice Chancellor to decide and pass suitable orders considering the resolu tion dated 17-12-1989, dismissing the aforesaid teachers from services. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehement ally urged that the impugned orders were passed by the Deputy Director of Education without affording an oppor tunity of being heard to the petitioner and passed the order on the ground which were non-existent and about which the petitioners were not afforded an oppor tunity to explain. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehement ally urged that the impugned orders were passed by the Deputy Director of Education without affording an oppor tunity of being heard to the petitioner and passed the order on the ground which were non-existent and about which the petitioners were not afforded an oppor tunity to explain. It was also submitted that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to suspend the grant in aid per manently and to permit (sic) the District Inspector of Schools to operate the ac counts and disburse the salaries of the mem bers of the staff of the college single handed-ly. It was also urged that it was coligator upon the Vice Chancellor Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi to which the college is affiliated to take decision on the papers relating to the dismissal of the Principal and the Assistant Teacher named above. The Vice Chanceller has il legally failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. He was, therefore, liable to be directed to decide the matter in accord ance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has con tended that the order passed by respondent No. 2 were quite legal and do not surfer from any infirmity. He urged that since the petitioners have failed to make the payment of salary of the Principal and Assistant teacher, named above, the Deputy Director of Education was legally justified in suspending the grant-in-aid and in permit ting the District Inspector of Schools to disburse the salary. 6. It would not be out of place to state that on an application moved by Shri Narendra Tiwan, Principal and four other teachers were impleadea as respondents in Writ Petition No. 3427 of 1990. Learned counsel appearing on their behalf sub mitted that the petitioners have filed another Writ Petition No. 5506 of 1990, which was dismissed by this Honble Court on 29-4-1993. Therefore, the present peti tion was also liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival conten tions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that the orders of single operation cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the management of the college. Therefore, the present peti tion was also liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival conten tions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that the orders of single operation cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the management of the college. A refer ence in this regard may be made to the decision in Committee of Management v. The District Inspector of Schools and others 1980 UPLBEC 93, wherein it was held as under: "in the nature of proceedings contemplated by Section 5 of the U. P. High School and Inter mediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the order which may be passed directing single opera tion is not order which may require detailed reasons as such. What is required is that the order to be passed after due application of mind and after giving opportunity to the management to have its say on the matter. " 8. In the present case an opportunity, with respect to the charges/grounds enumerated in the impugned order, on the basis of which the said order was passed was not afforded to the petitioner and the im pugned order was passed by respondent No. 2. The said orders were passed in violation of principle of natural justice, and was bad in law. Further there was no justification for respondent No. 2 to suspend the grant-in-aid that college. The impugned orders are thus, liable to be set aside. 9. I have perused the order dated 29-4-1993 passed by the Honble A. P. Singh, J. dismissing the writ petition No. 5506 of 1990-Committee of Management of Shri Harumant Sanskrit Vidyalaya v. State and other. The said writ petition was dis missed on the ground of pendency of the present petition, it was held that successive petitions on the basis of same cause of action" were not maintainable. The dismissal of the said petition, therefore, does not af fect the maintainability of the present peti tion. 10. From the material on record, it is apparent that Shri Narendra Tiwari and Shri Maaendra Pandey, the Principal and the teacher have been working in the in stitution, the matter of their dismissal from service is pending disposal before the Vice Chancellor. 10. From the material on record, it is apparent that Shri Narendra Tiwari and Shri Maaendra Pandey, the Principal and the teacher have been working in the in stitution, the matter of their dismissal from service is pending disposal before the Vice Chancellor. In my opinion, they are entitled their salary till the matter of their dismissal of the services are finalised by the Vice Chancellor. 11. The Writ Petition No. 3427 of 90 succeeded as allowed. The impugned or ders, dated 17-1-1990 and 2-2-1990 are quashed. The respondents are directed not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as committee of the manage ment of the college. However, the petitioners are directed to hold the election of the office bearer and members of the committee of management within a period of three months from today after following the procedure prescribe under law, if the same has not yet been held. Petitioners are also directed to make the payment of salary of Shri Narendra Tiwari and Shri Mahendra Pandey, the Principal and the Assistant teacher within a period of one month from today. 12. The writ petition No. 34793 of 1993 also succeeds and is allowed. The Vice Chancellor of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Varanasi is directed to take decision on the papers submitted by the petitioners within period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. However, it will be open to the contesting respondent in the said writ petition to raise all such objections as they are advised to raise in support of their claim before the Vice-Chancellor. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed. .