DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 21st January, 2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education, azamgarh Region Azamgarh to the extent it provides that the salary bills of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution shall be submitted only under the signatures of the Principal of the Institution. ( 2 ) IT transpires that respondent No. 5-Phool Chand Singh, had earlier filed writ Petition No. 306 of 2010 for quashing the order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools recognizing the Committee of Management with Brij Mohan Rai as the Manager. This petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2010 and the observations are as follows: "i have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The District Inspector of Schools has recognized the respondent-Committee of Management by the order dated 22nd April, 2009. It is the case of the petitioners that they had also held election which has not been taken into consideration by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioners have represented their matter to the Joint Director of Education who is the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee. The contention of the respondent-Committee of Management is that the Regional Level Committee doe$ not have the jurisdiction. This objection can also be examined by the Regional Level committee as also other objections. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Regional committee to decide the matter expeditiously after according adequate opportunity to the petitioners as also the respondent-Committee of management and it shall be open to the respondent-Committee of Management to raise all the objections before the Regional Committee including the objection that the Regional Committee does not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case, which shall be considered by the Regional Committee in accordance with law. " ( 3 ) IT is pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order that notice dated 21st january, 2010 has been issued by the Joint Director of Education asking the parties to appear before him on 5th February, 2010 at 2. " ( 3 ) IT is pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order that notice dated 21st january, 2010 has been issued by the Joint Director of Education asking the parties to appear before him on 5th February, 2010 at 2. 00 p. m. However, he has further ordered that till the dispute is decided, the salary bills of the teachers and non-teaching staff of the Institution shall be submitted under the signatures of the principal of the Institution. ( 4 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there was no justification for the Joint Director of Education to pass such an order since the signatures of the Manager had earlier been attested by the order dated 24th April, 2009 which order was not set aside by this Court in writ Petition No. 306 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 5. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that in view of the allegations made against the Joint Director of Education, in paragraphs 36 to 42 of the writ petition, it is necessary that the joint Director of Education should not hear the matter. ( 5 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, while Sri GK. Singh, appears for respondent No. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents state that it may not be necessary to file any counter affidavit and the petition may be decided at this stage. They have, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Joint Director of Education directing the submission of the salary bills under the signatures of the Principal since the dispute is pending before the Regional Level Committee. They have further submitted that the averments made in paragraphs 36 to 42 are absolutely vague and details of the cases have not been mentioned. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) THE first submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is about the directions issued by the Joint Director of Education that the salary bills of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution should be submitted under the signatures of the Principal. ( 7 ) THE first submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is about the directions issued by the Joint Director of Education that the salary bills of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution should be submitted under the signatures of the Principal. ( 8 ) AS noticed, hereinabove, the signatures of the Committee of Management with Brij Mohan Rai as the Manager had been attested by the District Inspector of schools on 24th April, 2009. Dr. Phool Chand Singh had filed certain representations against the said elections and had also been claimed that the election held by him had not been taken into consideration by the District Inspector of Schools. This matter is still to be decided by the Regional Level Committee. In such circumstances, the Joint Director of Education was not justified in passing such an order merely on the ground that the dispute was pending before the Regional level Committee, particularly when the order dated 24th April, 2009 which was assailed in Writ Petition No. 306 of 2010 had not been set aside. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain this order. It is, accordingly, set aside. ( 9 ) THE second submission of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is about the bias alleged against respondent No. 6, the Joint Director of Education. Proper details have not been given in the writ petition and, therefore, it is not possible to consider this plea. The petitioners, may in case they are so advised, raise such objections before the Regional Level committee. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. .