A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 claiming to be Committee of Management Public Higher Secondary School. Anthari Nidhuri. District Sant Kabir Nagar, has filed this petition under Article 226. Constitution of India and seeks to challenge the orders dated 27th March, 1999 and 8th June, 1999 (Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition respectively ). ( 2 ) BY means of the order dated 27th March, 1999 District Inspector of Schools purports to have refused to recognise the petitioners Committee of Management and. on the other hand, held that committee of Management allegedly constituted on 25th September, 1996 represented by maqbool Ahmad was valid and recognised. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter vide impugned order dated 8th June. 1999 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) recognised alleged committee of Management represented by Chaudhary Javed Ahmad Khan on the basis of alleged elections held on 23rd June, 1999. The District Inspector of Schools further attested signature and sent the same to Accounts Officer, Siddharth Nagar. ( 3 ) AT the outset. Court raised objection against challenge to the order dated 27th March, 1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) on the ground that petitioner has not acted diligently and was guilty of laches. As far as challenge to the said order is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner drew notice of the Court to the contents of Paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of the writ petition which show that petitioner has filed representation in the light of ratio laid down in the case of Shandar Husain, 1995 (2) ACJ 1244 and it was entertained by Joint Director of education. Basti Region. Basil as contended by the petitioner. The Joint Director of Education, according to the petitioner superseded the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 27th march. 1999 and commanded the said authority to hold elections in terms of the directions given vide order dated 8th August. 1995 issued by the then Joint Director of Education. Presently office of Joint Director of Education, Basti Region. Basti respondent No. 10 is being held by one dwarika Prasad and petitioner alleges that, on being approached by other party, said Joint director of Education he started disputing the genuineness of his own order dated 17th May. 1999. ( 4 ) THERE are no laches as far as the challenge to other impugned order dated 8th June. 1999 is concerned. 1999. ( 4 ) THERE are no laches as far as the challenge to other impugned order dated 8th June. 1999 is concerned. ( 5 ) THE petitioners allege and claim that their Committee of Management is constituted on the basis of elections held on 5th May. 1996. On the other hand, contesting respondent No. 3 (represented by Dr. R. G. Padia), claims to have been constituted on the basis of elections held on 2nd June, 1996. ( 6 ) VALIDITY of said election was raised by respective parties by filing several petitions, which were, however, finally decided by learned single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21st January. 1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24041 of 1995 and relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus : "learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 25626 of 1995 urged that fresh election of the office bearers and members of the Committee was held on 2. 6. 96. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court noted above. It was not open to the petitioners to hold any election. The fact remains that more than six years have already elapsed, the D. I. O. S. so far did not take any decision with respect to the alleged election and the matter is still pending for disposal before it. Therefore, these petitions are finally disposed of with the directions to the D. I. O. S. to take decision in respect of the validity of above noted election. It will be open to the contesting respondent to raise objection if any before the D. I. O. S. against the aforesaid elections. If any objection is raised by the contesting respondent, the same shall be decided by the D. I. O. S. In accordance with law. With these directions these petitions are disposed of finally. Sd. / R. H. Zaidi, J. 21. 1. 1999" ( 7 ) IN pursuance to the said direction of the High Court, dispute regarding Committee of management of the Institution went before District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools passed impugned order dated 27th March, 1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). ( 8 ) THE impugned order dated 27th March. 1. 1999" ( 7 ) IN pursuance to the said direction of the High Court, dispute regarding Committee of management of the Institution went before District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools passed impugned order dated 27th March, 1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). ( 8 ) THE impugned order dated 27th March. 1999 does not suffer from manifest error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as it has misread the order passed by this Court on 21st January, 1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) the District Inspector of Schools has categorically mentioned that this Court recognised the elections of Maqbool Ahmad to have been held on 2nd june. 1996. This observation of the District Inspector of Schools is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of the High Courts order. Perusal of the High Courts judgment and order dated 21st January. 1994 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) cannot be taken to have recognised elections of either party. ( 9 ) DR Padia, however, tried to meet the argument on this score raised by petitioners on the ground that there might be some inadvertent misstatement of fact by drawing notice of the Court to the same Impugned order wherein District Inspector of Schools correctly reproduced the import of the High Court judgment. The averment on behalf of the contesting respondent cannot be accepted Inasmuch as information of facts in the Impugned order is earlier. Subsequently, the district Inspector of Schools while discussing the case made complete misreading of the order of high Court and proceeded on that basis which completely vitiates his order dated 27th March, 1999. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, 1 conclude that said impugned order dated 27th March, 1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) AS far as second Impugned order dated 8th June, 1999 is concerned, it cannot stand once the order dated 27th March, 1999 passed by District Inspector of Schools disappears. This impugned order dated 8th June. 1999 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) is also liable to be set aside. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting with the judgment, I would like to record that irresponsibility, lethargy, inaction and sometime collusive action on the part of educational authorities in the State of U. P. are largely responsible for fomenting litigation Involving educational institutions. 1999 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) is also liable to be set aside. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting with the judgment, I would like to record that irresponsibility, lethargy, inaction and sometime collusive action on the part of educational authorities in the State of U. P. are largely responsible for fomenting litigation Involving educational institutions. Considerable litigation can. however, be checked if the educational authorities show a little concern and do not abuse their official position. I would hasten to add that there are good officers as well but their contribution to the society is being undermined because of increasing number belonging to other section comprising of officers who are either ignorant/incompetent and/or guilty of abuse of power. It is high time that such officers are brought to book and deterrent action is taken against them. ( 13 ) IT is also high time for Government to consider suggestion of this Court given in several judgments to constitute a Tribunal--See 1980 UPLBEC 43 (DB ). If need be, legislative enactment be brought to meet the situation. ( 14 ) I shall like to place on record that this very Joint Director of Education (Shri Dwarika prasadj to whom relates the averments in Paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of the present writ petition, has been found in another case acting in a highly reprehensible manner while holding office of district Inspector of Schools. His working as District Inspector of Schools came for scrutiny before this Court and certain observations have been made in the judgment dated 18th August, 1999 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 9815 of 1999, Committee of Management v. District inspector of Schools, decided along with connected writ petition. Relevant observations are reproduced : "the said impugned order is said to have been passed on the basis of opinion obtained from standing counsel ; true copy of the said opinion dated 12. 2. 1999 has been annexed as Annexure no. 7 to the petition. It is sad to note that standing counsel appointed by the State Government at the High Court gave opinion against record. The standing counsel ought to have desisted from giving such opinion, which was apparently aimed to help a litigant out of way. The District inspector of Schools should have also applied his own mind and relied upon his wisdom. It is sad to note that standing counsel appointed by the State Government at the High Court gave opinion against record. The standing counsel ought to have desisted from giving such opinion, which was apparently aimed to help a litigant out of way. The District inspector of Schools should have also applied his own mind and relied upon his wisdom. It is high time, that Court must take notice of the fact that opinions are obtained from standing counsels and concerned D. G. C. (Civil) for extraneous consideration which are, per se record, given for strengthening hands of one or the other unscrupulous litigant. Authorities and officials who are involved in such racket cannot be said to be above board. Their own integrity comes under shadow of doubt. In the facts of this case, it is appropriate that a copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government for initiating enquiry and suitable action against concerned District Inspector of Schools and to ensure to check on such practices in future. One Sri Dwarika Prasad, the then District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 17. 10. 1998 held that none of the three rival contending parties could be recognised as legally constituted Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools, sent a letter dated 5. 2. 1999 addressed to Sri S. C. Srivastava, standing counsel for U. P. at High Court, at Allahabad. One fails to find reason why said letter was addressed to particular standing counsel. Reasons may not be too far to find. After having managed a tailor made legal opinion, the then District Inspector of Schools got fortified to pass an order, which he was not otherwise tn a position to issue (in view of his order dated 17. 10. 98)and oblige a particular party of his choice. In the impugned order dated 26. 2. 1999 the District Inspector of Schools, referred to the opinion of the standing counsel and went ahead boldly to perpetuate gross misuse of his official position and power. He passed impugned order and recognised one Sri Hamidullah Khan as president/manager /treasurer. This Court regrets to record a note that District Inspector of Schools (belonging to educational department) became instrumental in paving way to circumvent his own order dated 17. 10. 1998 and for it he willingly went out of his way. He passed impugned order and recognised one Sri Hamidullah Khan as president/manager /treasurer. This Court regrets to record a note that District Inspector of Schools (belonging to educational department) became instrumental in paving way to circumvent his own order dated 17. 10. 1998 and for it he willingly went out of his way. It has lead to more fierce litigation. " Government may in future consider the feasibility and propriety of divesting such officers from dealing matters pertaining to educational institutions. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, writ petition succeeds and impugned orders dated 27th March, 1999 and 8th June. 1999 (Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition] passed by District Inspector of schools Sant Kabir Nagar/siddharthnagar are set aside and the District Inspector of Schools is directed to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity to all the parties in accordance with law within one month of filing of certified copy of this judgment. All the parties, who are represented through counsels, shall appear before the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 6th September. 1999. .