JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.P.Singh for the petitioner Committee of Management, Sri L.P.Singh for the respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner Committee of Management has come up against the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 31.10.2009 and the consequential order dated 9.11.09 whereby the respondent No. 4 Mohd. Shahjad has been extended the benefit of appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the institution managed by the petitioner Committee which is a minority institution. 3. Sri Khare contends that the order is totally without jurisdiction and beyond the purview of the District Inspector of Schools inasmuch he has no authority to proceed to make any selection or appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in an Intermediate College which is a recognised minority institution. 4. The undisputed facts are that the institution is governed by the provisions of the U.P.Intermediate Education Act, 1921.Being a minority institution the provisions relating to the selection on the post of teaching staff is governed by Section 16-FF of the said Act and the regulations relating thereto. The Committee of Management advertised several posts including the post of Assistant Teacher in Arts against which selections were held and the papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for granting approval/financial sanction. The approval was conceded in favour of the Committee of Management vide order dated 9.2.07 except for the post of Assistant Teacher in Arts. The said order was passed pursuant to the directions issued by the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 31.1.07. 5. The claim of the selected candidate Saud Danish on the post of Assistant Teacher in Arts was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualification.It appears that Anwar Ali and respondent No. 4. Mohd. Sahjad filed two writ petitions before this Court being Writ Petition Nos. 2987 of 2008 and 9516 of 2007 which were disposed of on 14.5.2009 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider their claims and pass appropriate orders. The petition appears to have founded on the strength that the said petitioners were in the select list and therefore they were entitled to be considered for being selected and appointed on the post in question. 6. The petition appears to have founded on the strength that the said petitioners were in the select list and therefore they were entitled to be considered for being selected and appointed on the post in question. 6. It is on the said direction that the District Inspector of Schools proceeded to issue notice and has thereafter passed the impugned order holding that the respondent No. 4 was entitled to be selected and appointed. As such directions were issued to the petitioner for appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post in question. 7. Sri Khare learned senior counsel contends that such a direction could not have been given by the District Inspector of schools inasmuch as the power to hold selections and make appointment entirely vests with the Committee of Management which is a minority institution and the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Section 16-FF of the U.P.Intermediate Education Act, 1921. No such condition can be imposed by the District Inspector of Schools as has been done through the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Sri Khare then contends that even assuming that the select list could have been taken into account by the District Inspector of Schools, then also the candidate who was at serial No. 2 namely Gayur Hasan, ought to have been recommended inasmuch he had been placed by the Selection Committee at serial No. 2. Sri Khare further contends that the grounds taken for rejecting the claim of Gayur Hasan by the District Inspector of Schools are perverse. 9. Sri L.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 after advancing his submissions conceded that the institution stands protected as a minority institution and therefore any order passed by the District Inspector of Schools for making an appointment amounts to an encroachment upon the rights of a minority institution. For this he relies on the provisions of Section 16-FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He however submits that the respondent No. 4 is the most suitable candidate for being appointed. 10. Learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the District Inspector of Schools in effect has passed an order keeping in view of the provisions referred to herein above and in view of the directions issued by this Court on14.5.09. He however submits that the respondent No. 4 is the most suitable candidate for being appointed. 10. Learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the District Inspector of Schools in effect has passed an order keeping in view of the provisions referred to herein above and in view of the directions issued by this Court on14.5.09. He contends that accordingly the District Inspector of Schools cannot be said to have acted patently without jurisdiction in the matter. 11. In view of the nature of the submissions advanced and in view of the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling upon the respondents to file any further affidavit as the facts already brought on record are sufficient for a final disposal. 12. Having considered the legal submissions and having perused the impugned order it is evident that the institution is a minority institution and is governed by the provisions of the U.P.Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which provides the method of selection under Section 16-FF. The said provision reposes complete powers in Committee of Management for holding selection and preparation of select list for appointment in the institution. The District Inspector of Schools is only an authority to approve or disapprove the selection only for the purposes of financial sanction and in order to ensure that no unqualified candidate is appointed. 13. In the instant case the District Inspector of Schools has admittedly travelled beyond his jurisdiction in issuing a direction for appointment of respondent No. 4 who according to the select list was at serial No. 3. It was for the Committee of Management to have either appointed the respondent No. 4 or not in the event the candidate who was at serial No. 1 stands eliminated. The District Inspector of Schools cannot be a substitute of the selection committee and he can neither assure nor be possessed of such powers, as any such attempt would be interference with the choice of the minority. The District Inspector of Schools cannot form his own opinion about a candidate and select him. The choice has to be left to the selection, committee and the committee of management. In view of this the impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. The District Inspector of Schools cannot form his own opinion about a candidate and select him. The choice has to be left to the selection, committee and the committee of management. In view of this the impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Merely because a contempt petition was filed in this Court, did not give any occasion to the District Inspector of Schools to go haywire and pass an order which is contrary to law. In such a situation the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot be sustained. 14. Accordingly the impugned orders dated 31.10.2009 and 9.11.2009 are quashed. 15. It shall be open to the Committee of Management to either consider the candidature of the candidates who had been placed in the select list below the candidate whose candidature has been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools or to hold fresh selection. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ————