JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J. Order dated 23.07.2013 passed in this writ petition is quoted below: "Heard Sri Shyam Kinkar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2-District Basic Education Officer. In pursuance to the earlier order dated 19.07.2013, Sri Dal Singh Yadav, District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar is present in person. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2-B.S.A. has placed on record instructions received by him after supplying a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Order reserved. " 2. A Junior High School was proposed to be constructed in village Usraha, District Ambedkar Nagar. As required by the relevant provision, meeting of Land Management Committee of the village was held on 18.05.2008 and a formal proposal was passed which was for constructing the school earmarking Gata No.3283-M, area 0.190 hectare for the said purpose. 3. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is a communication dated 18.10.2008 D.C. (N), Ambedkar Nagar. At the top of that, office of Special B.S.A., Ambedkar Nagar, District Samanvayak (Quardinator) Karya is printed. It is addressed to Construction In-charge, Babu Ram Yadav, i.e. the petitioner. The name of village Pradhan is mentioned as Smt. Sushma, Usaraha Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar. In the said communication, it is mentioned that today (i.e. 18.10.2008) demarcation for construction of the school has been done and construction work should at once be started so that it could be completed by 31.12.2008. It prescribed certain standards for constructions. 4. It is mentioned in para-4 of the writ petition that petitioner got started the work, however on 28.02.2009, B.S.A. issued a letter to the petitioner to stop the construction work of the school. Copy of the letter is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said letter, it is mentioned that Deputy Collector, Jalalpur had informed that construction was being made on pond land hence it must be stopped at once. It is stated in para-5 of the writ petition, that after about three months, petitioner was directed to restart the work. Copy of the letter is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said letter, it is mentioned that Deputy Collector, Jalalpur had informed that construction was being made on pond land hence it must be stopped at once. It is stated in para-5 of the writ petition, that after about three months, petitioner was directed to restart the work. It is not clear that when and in what form, permission/ direction of the higher authority was given to restart the construction and why construction could not be completed for more than two years, i.e. uptil 02.08.2011 as in the same para-5, it is stated that on 02.08.2011 petitioner was directed to stop the work which he accordingly did. 5. Annexure-4 to the writ petition is a letter dated 21.09.2011 by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ambedkar Nagar to Deputy Collector, Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar reminding him that he (Deputy Collector) had directed to stop the construction of the school on 02.08.2011, which had been approved in 2008-09 and in plot No.1489, there was already a Junior High School Biswanath Nagar Usaraha, which was recognised. It was requested that the permission to construct school rooms in the said school might be given. It was also mentioned that construction of the new school (in plot No.3283) had reached the stage of plinth area. However, it is not clear that what happened on the said letter. 6. Thereafter, one Bholu Prasad @ Lalu filed a complaint on 18.09.2012 and 04.12.2012 to the effect that the construction/ part construction was made in plot No.3283, which was a pond land. 7. In the impugned order dated 15.02.2013 (Annexure-V), it was stated that petitioner had informed that construction work had started w.e.f. 19.02.2009 (in para-4 of the writ petition, the date on which construction work started was cleverly not been given) however the work in fact had not been started till then and Assistant B.S.A. on 20.02.2009 had warned the petitioner that he was utterly negligent in getting the work started and only thereafter the work was started. Immediately thereafter, i.e. on 26.02.2009, Suresh Kumar Maurya sent complaint to the Deputy Collector that the construction was being made on a pond land while it should be made on plot No.2447. Immediately thereafter, i.e. on 26.02.2009, Suresh Kumar Maurya sent complaint to the Deputy Collector that the construction was being made on a pond land while it should be made on plot No.2447. It is further mentioned in the order dated 15.02.2013 that Bholu Prasad intimated that it was apparent from report of Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Jalalpur that the Land Management Committee through resolution dated 14.07.2008 had decided that construction should start and the school should be made in plot No.2447-M, area 0.100 hectare. It was further stated in the complaint that petitioner started construction work over plot No.3282-M while whole plot No.3283 and 3283-kha, area 0.658 was entered as pond. 8. Through the impugned order petitioner was required to deposit Rs.3,15,000/- in the bank which he had withdrawn for construction of school. Through this writ petition, prayer for quashing of the order/ letter dated 15.02.2013 has been made. 9. One of the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner is that the resolution of Land Management Committee changing the plot for construction of the school shown to have been passed on 14.07.2008 was antidated. This argument is quite correct hence accepted. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is a communication from the District Coordinator Construction Work Incharge dated 18.10.2008 stating that on the said date demarcation had been done (on plot No.3283). Accordingly, there was no resolution of change of site of school till then. The decision regarding change of the plot for construction of the school was incorporated in the khatauni on 22.01.2009 under order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the D.M. hence it is clear that the resolution if any was passed immediately prior to 19.01.2009. This is also evident from Annexure-3, letter dated 28.02.2009 written by District B.S.A. to the petitioner, Coordinator Education Officer, Jalalpur and Pradhan intimating that Deputy Collector had informed that construction was being made on the pond land. The order of D.M. dated 19.01.2009 states that plot No.2447 was acquired (probably resumed under Section 117(6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). 10. Along with the instructions, copy of khatauni of 1415 to 1420 Fasli has been annexed recording on 22.01.2009 the order of Collector dated 19.01.2009 for resumption of the land. The order of D.M. dated 19.01.2009 states that plot No.2447 was acquired (probably resumed under Section 117(6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). 10. Along with the instructions, copy of khatauni of 1415 to 1420 Fasli has been annexed recording on 22.01.2009 the order of Collector dated 19.01.2009 for resumption of the land. Report of Block Education Officer, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar dated 20.12.2012 has also been annexed along with the instructions mentioning that even on 18.02.2009, District Coordinator Construction Officer had censured the petitioner for not starting the work and directed him to complete the construction by 31.03.2009. On 20.02.2009 notice was issued by Assistant B.S.A. to the petitioner mentioning that for one month construction was stopped. In the said letter itself it was mentioned that petitioner had embezzled the amount. A copy of letter written by the petitioner on 03.09.2012 to Block Education Officer, Jalalpur has also been supplied admitting that Rs.3,15,000/- had been withdrawn by him and stating that the account was jointly operated by him and Pradhan Smt. Sushma Yadav and different amounts had been withdrawn from 18.11.2008 to 28.06.2010 and Rs.2 lacs and odd were still in deposit. 11. Petitioner is Assistant Teacher in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalay Imlipur, Block Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and was made incharge of the construction of the school. 12. It is accordingly quite clear that the entire amount of Rs.3 lacs and odd or substantial part thereof has been embezzled by the petitioner and the Pradhan. No construction/ substantial construction has been made. However, B.S.A. is equally liable for the blunder as he sanctioned the construction of the school over a plot which in the revenue record was shown to be a pond land. In any case, when it had become clear to the B.S.A. that the plot which was initially earmarked for the school was shown as pond land in the revenue records, B.S.A. should have immediately inspected the constructions made till then and issued suitable directions to the petitioner for making construction on the new plot. Through letter dated 28.02.2009, Annexure-3, District B.S.A. Ambedkar Nagar only issued the direction for stopping the construction. There is no communication that any further direction was issued for either returning the unused amount or to start construction over the other plot. Through letter dated 28.02.2009, Annexure-3, District B.S.A. Ambedkar Nagar only issued the direction for stopping the construction. There is no communication that any further direction was issued for either returning the unused amount or to start construction over the other plot. The next communication is after more than one and a half years dated 21.02.2011, Annexure-4 to the writ petition by B.S.A. to Deputy Collector, Jalalpur. Moreover the Collector through order dated 19.01.2009 earmarked plot No.2447-M for construction of school however in the letter dated 21.09.2011 District B.S.A. Ambedkar Nagar requested the Deputy Collector for making construction of plot No.1489 where another school was already being run. 13. In the instructions supplied by learned Additional C.S.C. in the form of different reports and orders, it is mentioned that on plot No.3283-M building of the school had been constructed uptil DPC level. This has also been mentioned in Annexure-4, letter by District B.S.A., Ambedkar Nagar to Deputy Collector, Jalalpur. Firstly, the petitioner was utterly negligent in unduly delaying the start of the work even after withdrawing the amount for the Bank. It appears that the work was started in the end of February or early March, 2009. The allegation in para-5 that after about three months from 28.02.2009 direction was issued to restart work is not correct. No document in that regard has been filed. The further allegation in same para-5 that on 02.08.2011, petitioner was again directed to stop work is quite strange. If in June, 2009 work had stated, it is inconceivable that it would not have been completed by July, 2011, i.e. for more than two years. 14. Similarly, the allegation that the Gaon Sabha passed resolution on 14.07.2008 changing the plot over which school was to be constructed from 3283-M to 2497 is also incorrect. The resolution must have been passed much afterwards. D.M. passed order on 19.01.2009, which was carried out in the khatauni of 1415 and 1420 Fasli as supplied along with instructions by learned counsel for respondent. The order dated 19.01.2009 was incorporated on 22.01.2009. According to the said order, plot No.2447, area 0.100 hectare was resumed for school building. Accordingly, it is proved that prior to that no resolution had been passed. In any case as the order was of resumption under Section 117(6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, hence there is no question of any resolution of Gaon Sabha. 15. According to the said order, plot No.2447, area 0.100 hectare was resumed for school building. Accordingly, it is proved that prior to that no resolution had been passed. In any case as the order was of resumption under Section 117(6) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, hence there is no question of any resolution of Gaon Sabha. 15. In the letter dated 20.12.2012 sent by Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar to District B.S.A., Ambedkar Nagar, it is mentioned that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.3,15,000/-, however construction only up till D.P.C. level had been made in plot No.3283 and in the compound of Prathmik Vidyalay Usaraha only foundation had been dug and the cost incurred in these jobs could be got ascertained through competent agency. 16. Accordingly, it is directed the cost actually incurred by the petitioner should at once be got evaluated by competent agency. Petitioner is immediately required to return Rs.2 lacs. After inspection by competent agency exact amount spent by the petitioner should be ascertained and after deducting the same from Rs.3,15,000/-, the unused amount along with 18% per year interest shall be calculated. If it is more than Rs.2 lacs then the balance shall immediately be realised from the petitioner. However, if it is less than Rs.2 lacs then the balance amount shall be returned to the petitioner at once. The person, who was the Pradhan during the period when the amount of Rs.3,15,000/- in different instalments was withdrawn is also equally liable for the misappropriation. The B.S.A., who did not keep a watch on the working and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the amount without showing utilisation of the previously withdrawn amount is also responsible for misappropriation. Accordingly, the then Pradhan and the then B.S.A. are also liable to pay Rs.50,000/- each for their grave negligence, if not direct involvement, in this state of affairs. 17. Before parting, we express our great surprise and disapproval of this provision/ practice of asking teachers of schools to supervise the constructions of schools and to make available money to them without any proper supervision of utilisation of the same. Teachers are neither trained nor meant for this job. Government must consider to change this provision/ practice. 18. Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.