O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE dispute relates about the continuance and functioning of Sri Dharam Raj chaudhary-respondent No. 5 as the Principal of Sri Ram Janki Intermediate College, Girdharpur, kungai. Siddharthanagar. The facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows : there is an institution known as Sri Ram Janki Intermediate College, Girdharpur, Kungai, siddharthanagar which has been upgraded from time to time and now has acquired the status of an intermediate college. Sri Dharam Raj Chaudhary-respondent No. 5 was admittedly appointed as the Principal of the college. On account of certain allegations of squandering of the huge amount of the college and commission of various other irregularities, he was placed under suspension by the Committee of Management by order dated 10. 1. 1981. After due enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 1. 9. 1981. The relevant papers were sent for approval to the Basic siksha Adhikari who refused to accord necessary approval as required by law by order dated 1. 6. 1982. The Committee of Management preferred an appeal before the Basic Siksha Parishad. The said appeal was allowed by order dated 3. 1. 1983 and the order passed by the Basic Siksha adhikari to refuse the approval to the order of dismissal of the respondent No. 5 was set aside. Sri Dharam Raj Chaudhary challenged the order passed by the Basic Siksha Parishad by instituting Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 727 of 1982 which was dismissed at the initial stage by this Court on 21. 1. 1983. Thereafter Sri Dharam Raj Chaudhary filed a Civil Suit No. 19 of 1983 in the Court of Munsif, Bansi, district Siddharthanagar to challenge the order passed by the Basic siksha Parishad. With the filing of the suit. he also moved an application (12c) for temporary injunction for a direction to restrain the defendants not to interfere with his functioning as the principal of the College. An ex parte order of injunction was granted which was later on confirmed on 30. 5. 1983. The Committee of Management was not a party to the suit and. therefore, the present petitioner No. 2-Ram Kishore Das Bhikari. Chela Baba Mangal Das moved an application for impleadment which was rejected by the trial court by order dated 30. 5. 1983. An ex parte order of injunction was granted which was later on confirmed on 30. 5. 1983. The Committee of Management was not a party to the suit and. therefore, the present petitioner No. 2-Ram Kishore Das Bhikari. Chela Baba Mangal Das moved an application for impleadment which was rejected by the trial court by order dated 30. 5. 1983. The petitioner No. 2 filed a Civil Revision No. 181 of 1983 to challenge the order of the trial court whereby the application for impleadment was rejected. A Misc. Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1983 was also preferred against the order of injunction. Both the revision application and the misc. civil appeal were allowed by two separate orders dated 3. 9. 1984. The petitioner No. 2 was directed to be impleaded as party to the suit. The appeal with regard to the order of injunction was allowed and the order of injunction granted by the trial court was set aside. It was directed that the application for temporary injunction shall be decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Sri Dharam Raj Chaudhary, preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 14148 of 1984 against the said orders. The said writ petition was dismissed on 9. 9. 1996 by observing : "an application has been filed by the petitioner supported by his affidavit to dismiss the petition as not pressed. It is alleged that the petitioner has received the desired relief and as such he does not want to further adjudicate the matter. Copy of this application was served on the learned counsel for the respondents. There is no opposition. The application is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. 9. 9. 1996 Sd. S. C. Verma, J. " Undeterred by the various orders passed in the civil suit and the writ petition, the respondent no. 5-Dharam Raj Chaudhary continued to function as Principal of the College which had in the meantime come to be upgraded. The application is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. 9. 9. 1996 Sd. S. C. Verma, J. " Undeterred by the various orders passed in the civil suit and the writ petition, the respondent no. 5-Dharam Raj Chaudhary continued to function as Principal of the College which had in the meantime come to be upgraded. The Committee of Management of the college, through its president Sri Sant Ram Chaudhary and Ram Kishore Das Bhikari claiming himself to be a life member of the society and interested in the welfare of the institution run by the society, filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the defendant-respondent No. 5 be prevented from acting and functioning as the Principal of the college and that the proceeding in Suit No. 19 of 1983 now pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Siddharthanagar be quashed. It was also prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 be directed to make an enquiry into the alleged continuance of respondent No. 5 as Principal of the College after 3. 1. 1983 and to recover the amount paid to him as salary. ( 2 ) A number of counter, rejoinder and supplementary-affidavits have been exchanged. This writ petition was taken up for hearing on 28. 1. 1999 on which date Sri Rakesh Kumar appearing for and on behalf of the Committee of Management of the institution, moved an application that the petition be dismissed as not pressed as the newly constituted committee does not want to prosecute the writ petition. Accordingly on the statement of Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, who was engaged by the Committee of Management of the institution concerned, the writ petition was dismissed on 28. 1. 1999. Thereafter Sri A. K. Gupta, who had earlier filed the writ petition, moved an application with the prayer that the order of dismissal of the writ petition passed on 28. 1. 1999 be recalled and the writ petition be heard on merits. After hearing Sri Rakesh Kumar along with Sri S. K. Lal, counsel for the newly constituted Committee of Management, the order dated 28. 1. 1999 was recalled on 15. 3. 1999 for determining the question of maintainability or otherwise of the present writ petition in the light of the subsequent events. After hearing Sri Rakesh Kumar along with Sri S. K. Lal, counsel for the newly constituted Committee of Management, the order dated 28. 1. 1999 was recalled on 15. 3. 1999 for determining the question of maintainability or otherwise of the present writ petition in the light of the subsequent events. This is how the present writ petition has again come before this Court for hearing. ( 3 ) HEARD S/sri R. S. Misra, A. K. Gupta. learned counsel for the petitioners, S/sri Rakesh Kumar and S. K. Lal for the alleged newly constituted Committee of Management, Dr. R. G. Padia appearing on behalf of Sri Dharam Raj Chaudhary, respondent No. 5-Principal of the College, as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of the other respondents, at length. ( 4 ) THERE is no doubt about the fact that the present writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management of the college concerned through its erstwhile President Sri Sant Ram chaudhary and a life member of the society. A new Committee of Management has come into being consequent upon the elections held on 25. 6. 1997 under the control and supervision of district Inspector of Schools (for short called the D. I. O. S. ). S/sri Jagram and Ram Ajorey chaudhary were elected as the President and Secretary respectively of the newly constituted committee of Management. The signatures of Sri Ram Ajorey Chaudhary were attested by the d. I. O. S. The resolution to withdraw the present writ petition was adopted by the newly elected committee of Management on 13. 7. 1997, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the Application No. 45185 of 1997 moved for the withdrawal of the present writ petition and a copy of which was served on Sri Anand Kumar Gupta. advocate for the old Committee of Management. This application remained pending for a considerable long time without any objection. On the strength of the statement made by Sri Rakesh Kumar, counsel for the new Committee of management, the petition was dismissed on 28. 1. 1999. ( 5 ) S/sri R. S. Misra and A. K. Gupta urged that there is no Committee of Management in existence and the functions of the Committee of Management are being discharged by the d. I. O. S. ; that the election which is alleged to have taken place on 25. 6. 1. 1999. ( 5 ) S/sri R. S. Misra and A. K. Gupta urged that there is no Committee of Management in existence and the functions of the Committee of Management are being discharged by the d. I. O. S. ; that the election which is alleged to have taken place on 25. 6. 1997 is the subject-matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 20194 of 1997 and 26563 of 1997 in which the order dated 26. 6. 1997 attesting the signatures of Sri Ram Ajorey Chaudhary by the d. I. O. S. has been stayed. Against the said order, Special Appeal No. 920 of 1998 has been filed. it is still pending. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the D. I. O. S. has recorded the finding on 17. 8. 1998 that the election held on 25. 6. 1997 was in order. The said order of the D. I. O. S. has again been challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32506 of 1998 in which a stay order has been passed on 27. 3. 1999. Sri Ram Ajorey Chaudhary claiming himself to be the duly elected manager has filed Special Appeal Nos. 255 and 256 of 1999. The present position as it stands is that the institution is under the management and control of the D. I. O. S. who is discharging the functions of Committee of Management. An order for single operation of the accounts of the institution has also been passed. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 5-Sri Dharam Raj chaudhary is still functioning as Principal of the college. ( 6 ) IT is an indubitable fact that the Committee of Management of which Sri Sant Ram Chaudhary was President in the year 1996 when the writ petition was filed is no more in existence. The earlier Committee of Management, by lapse of time, became functus officio. In its place, a new committee of Management has come into being and as said above. S/sri Jag Ram and Ram ajorey Chaudhary have been elected as President and Manager respectively. This Committee of management was recognised by the D. I. O. S. and on 13. 7. 1997. The earlier Committee of Management, by lapse of time, became functus officio. In its place, a new committee of Management has come into being and as said above. S/sri Jag Ram and Ram ajorey Chaudhary have been elected as President and Manager respectively. This Committee of management was recognised by the D. I. O. S. and on 13. 7. 1997. on which date the resolution to withdraw the present writ petition was passed by the new Committee of Management, there was no writ petition or stay order with regard to the election or functioning of the new Committee of management. On the strength of the resolution, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the application for withdrawal of the present writ petition, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In any case, Sri Sant Ram Chaudhary who filed the present petition, on behalf of the Committee of management, has lost his right to continue the writ petition as the earlier Committee of management stands substituted by the newly constituted Committee of Management. Even if it be taken that the new Committee of Management cannot function in view of the stay order passed by this Court, this legal and factual aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of that the earlier Committee of Management represented by Sri Sant Ram Chaudhary cannot be revived once it has ceased to exist. It is either the newly constituted Committee of Management which is to function in place of old committee or the D. I. O. S. would perform the functions of the committee of Management under the orders of the Court and the higher authorities. The D. I. O. S. who is performing the functions of the Committee of Management has not challenged the right of the respondent No. 5 to function and continue as Principal of the College. Therefore, if the new Committee of Management has taken a decision to withdraw the writ petition, the old committee of Management which had instituted the writ petition can have no grudge in the matter. ( 7 ) SRI R. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in the absence of the Committee of Management, Sri Ram Kishore Das Bhikari-petitioner No. 2 has right to continue the writ petition as being the life member of the society and interested in the welfare of the institution. ( 7 ) SRI R. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in the absence of the Committee of Management, Sri Ram Kishore Das Bhikari-petitioner No. 2 has right to continue the writ petition as being the life member of the society and interested in the welfare of the institution. It has come on record that the membership of Ram Kishore Das Bhikari-petitioner No. 2 has been terminated by the general body on 6. 7. 1986 as has been averred in paragraph 20 of the main counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 5. Sri Ram Kishore Das Bhikari, therefore, has ceased to have any interest in the matter and, thus, he cannot by himself continue the writ petition. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Sri Ram Kishore Das Bhikari in his individual capacity or even otherwise, has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 5. It is the committee of Management, which is the aggrieved party and if it chooses to accept the respondent No. 5 as Principal of the institution and permits him to continue as such and function in the said capacity, the petitioner No. 2 cannot, by any stretch of Imagination, take an exception of the validity of the functions being discharged by the respondent No. 5 as Principal. On behalf of the new Committee of Management and the respondent No. 5, a number of decisions were cited to lend strength to the point that the present writ petition cannot be treated as a public interest litigation on behalf of Sri Ram Kishore Das Bhikari. In this behalf, reference was made to the following decisions : raunaq International v. IV R. Construction, 1909 (1) SCC 492 (Note B ). Bhartiya Homoeopathy College v. Student Counsel, 1998 (2) SCC 499 (Note B paras 24 and 25 ). R. K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1769 (Note F para 74)U. P. Bank Employees Union v. State of U. P. , 1985 LIC-337 (para 25)Mohd. Idris v. State of V. P. , 1999 ACJ 682. My considered view of the matter is that independent of the Committee of Management, Ram kishore Das Bhikari has no right to challenge the continuance of the respondent No. 5 as the principal of the college. Idris v. State of V. P. , 1999 ACJ 682. My considered view of the matter is that independent of the Committee of Management, Ram kishore Das Bhikari has no right to challenge the continuance of the respondent No. 5 as the principal of the college. ( 8 ) IN view of the subsequent events, which have taken place after the institution of the writ petition and particularly the fact that a new Committee of Management has adopted a resolution to withdraw the writ petition, the present writ petition has, of necessity, to be dismissed as the original petitioners have lost their right to pursue the same. ( 9 ) A passing reference may be made to the merits of the case of the petitioners. Whether the respondent No. 5 has to function or continue as the Principal of the college is a question, which is now to be determined and decided by the civil court where Suit No. 19 of 1983 is pending in which the order of the Basic Siksha Parishad has been challenged. The controversial facts, which are the subject-matter of scrutiny before the civil court can appropriately be decided after evidence. In the writ jurisdiction, the scrutiny of facts is not possible. The order to dismiss the respondent No. 5 was passed way back in the year 1981, i. e. . two decades ago. This order could not be implemented on account of refusal of the Basic Siksha Adhikari to accord the necessary approval. An order of dismissal passed by the Committee of Management cannot be translated into action unless it is approved by the appropriate statutory authority. The Basic Siksha parishad before which the order of the Basic Siksha Adhikari was challenged allowed the appeal. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that after the vacation of the order of injunction by the appellate court in Misc. Appeal No. 207 of 1983. it shall be deemed that necessary approval has been granted and consequently, respondent No. 5 stood dismissed from service. Dr. Padia urged that mere passing of the resolution by the Committee of Management is not enough. For the grant of approval by the competent authority, further steps are required to be taken by the committee of Management to determine the employment of an employee. In support of his contention, Dr. Dr. Padia urged that mere passing of the resolution by the Committee of Management is not enough. For the grant of approval by the competent authority, further steps are required to be taken by the committee of Management to determine the employment of an employee. In support of his contention, Dr. Padia placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of a. S. H. P. Association and others v. Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, 1977 ALJ 341, in which the following view was taken : "it is true that before the Managing Committee of an Institution applies to the Inspector of schools soliciting his approval for terminating the service of an employee, it has to meet and decide that the service of the employee is to be terminated by giving him one months notice and that such decision of the Managing Committee is to be expressed in the form of a resolution. The service of the employee is not affected by such resolution. Mere approval by the Inspector also does not have the effect of determining the employment of the employee. The Committee of management has to, after its resolution has been approved, take steps to determine the employment either by giving the employee one months notice or one months pay in lieu thereof. It is thus evident that what can be approved by the Inspector is the proposal made by the committee for terminating the service of the employee and not its action in determining his employment. " On the strength of the above observation, it was maintained that no steps were taken by the committee of Management to dispense with the services of respondent No. 5 after the appeal was allowed by the Basic Siksha Parishad and the order of injunction had been vacated by the appellate court in Misc. Appeal No. 207 of 1983. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the respondent No. 5 has been allowed to continue and function as Principal of the College by the committee of Management throughout the long period of about 17 years. Sri R. S. Misra pointed out that the respondent No. 5 has been sticking to the office by manipulating disputes between the rival Committees of Management, particularly, the managers and has taken full advantage of such conflict of interest. Sri R. S. Misra pointed out that the respondent No. 5 has been sticking to the office by manipulating disputes between the rival Committees of Management, particularly, the managers and has taken full advantage of such conflict of interest. This submission besides being meritless, does not go too far. The respondent No. 5 cannot be expected to have such monstrous capacity as to maneuver office bearers of various Committees of Management and the authorities concerned with a view to cling to office. The fact remains that the respondent No. 5 has been working on the post of principal in spite of the order of dismissal passed in the year 1981. The said order was never given effect to. There are also documents on record to indicate that Sri Sant Ram Chaudhary and sri Ram Kishore Das Bhikari who have filed the present writ petition in one capacity or the other, had themselves been responsible to permit the respondent No. 5 to function and continue as Principal of the college. ( 10 ) IN the conspectus of the above facts, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable at the instance of Sant Ram Chaudhary as well as Sri. Ram Kishore Das Bhikari. They have no locus standi to continue the writ petition in view of the resolution adopted by the new Committee of Management to withdraw the writ petition. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to cost.