JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri. Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri. Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents, Shri. Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Shri. J.B.S. Rathour, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Shri. R.K.S. Suryvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. This Intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 has been filed by the Committee of Management, through Ram Dev Misra, the Secretary (appellant No. 1), the President of Committee of Management-Raj a Ram Mishra (appellant No. 2) and Shri. Ram Dev Mishra (appellant No. 3), assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17211 (S/S) of 2018, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the present appellants has been dismissed. The dispute relates to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6-Raghvendra Pratap Singh, as a clerk in the Institution, namely, Mahatma Sarvesh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sultanpur, Post Office and District Sultanpur. 3. Initially, when the Committee of Management wanted to make the selection, it was informed that there was a ban imposed by the State. Subsequently, the said ban was lifted. The respondent No. 6 is said to have been selected and appointed on the said post under a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 5.9.2017. The papers of the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 were forwarded to the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur on 6.9.2017. 4. The District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur by an order dated 15.12.2017, declined to grant approval on the ground that there was a ban on the selection and appointment on the post of clerk under the Government Order dated 6.11.2015. The said order dated 15.12.2017 of the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur was challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 109 (S/S) of 2018 filed by the Committee of Management, through it's Manager, namely, Satya Saran Singh (respondent No. 5) in the present appeal. 5. The said Writ Petition No. 109 (S/S) of 2018 was allowed by judgment and order dated 20.2.2018 and the matter was remitted to the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur for reconsidering the issue in accordance to law within the time prescribed, i.e., 6 weeks. 5. The said Writ Petition No. 109 (S/S) of 2018 was allowed by judgment and order dated 20.2.2018 and the matter was remitted to the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur for reconsidering the issue in accordance to law within the time prescribed, i.e., 6 weeks. The Writ Court also provided that while deciding the issue, the President of the Committee of Management, who had sought impleadment in the Writ Petition No. 109 (S/S) of 2018 was to be provided an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the said order dated 20.12.2018, the President of the Committee of Management, namely, Shri. Raja Ram Mishra (appellant No. 2) submitted a representation dated 24.4.2018 before the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur. 6. We have perused the said representation and find that the main ground of attack to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 was to the effect that in fact the Committee of Management had never passed any resolution approving the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 and even if any resolution has been filed the same was forged and fabricated. Certain other issues were also raised that some matters were pending before the Deputy Registrar, relating to dispute of membership of the Society and some other issues were also raised with regard to convening of meeting of Committee of Management. It is also stated in the said representation that the Manager in his capacity had actually approved the selection and appointment, when in fact, he had no such authority and it was only the Committee of Management which could have done. 7. The District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur passed an order dated 08.05.2018 in compliance of the directions issued in the order dated 20.02.2018 by the Writ Court and rejected the representation of the appellant and approved the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6. It is this office order issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur dated 8.5.2018 which was assailed by way of Writ Petition No. 17211 (S/S) of 2018 by the present 3 appellants. The learned single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition after dealing with the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records placed before the learned single Judge. 8. The learned single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition after dealing with the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records placed before the learned single Judge. 8. Before the learned single Judge, one serious objection was raised by the respondents to the Writ Petition that the Committee of Management can be represented by the Manager only and all matters to be instituted in any Court can be done only through the Manager under the Bye-laws of the Society and therefore the President and the Secretary had no authority to file the present Writ Petition. 9. This argument although considered by the learned single Judge to be a valid objection but at the same time as Ramdev Mishra, the Secretary of the Committee of Management had himself been impleaded as petitioner No. 3 to the Writ Petition the learned single Judge entertained the petition and decided the same on merits. 10. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants before the Writ Court was dealt with and the learned single Judge was of the view that there was no illegality in the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur (wrongly mentioned as District Inspector of Schools) in the last paragraph of the judgment and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition. 11. Before us Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following arguments, firstly, the representation given by the appellants on 4.4.2018, pursuant to the judgment and order dated 20.2.2018 contained 15 paragraphs which he refers as 15 points' being raised before the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and none of these points were dealt with either by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur or the learned single Judge as such both the orders were vitiated and the present appeal as such deserves to be allowed. 12. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed upon the following three judgments:- 1. State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 568 (relevant paragraph 8) : ( AIR 2004 SC 1794 ) 2. Ram Saran and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2014 (3) UPLBEC 1820 (relevant paragraphs 10 to 12) 3. Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010 AIR SCW 5715) (relevant paragraph 48 to 51) 13. Ram Saran and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2014 (3) UPLBEC 1820 (relevant paragraphs 10 to 12) 3. Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010 AIR SCW 5715) (relevant paragraph 48 to 51) 13. The ratio or the observations recorded in these judgments basically are to the effect that cryptic orders passed by the authorities are not a good practice and it actually does not allow the superior authority or Courts to decide it's validity and it is only when the reasons are recorded, the superior authority or Court may correctly appreciate the same and decide as to whether the order passed by the Authority is right or wrong. 14. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 20.2.2018 passed in the Writ Court in S/S No. 109 of 2018, whereby specific opportunity was provided to the President of the Committee of Management-Raja Ram to be afforded an opportunity of hearing by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur having not been extended as such there is violation of the directions. 15. The third argument raised with regard to the orders of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the learned single Judge being cryptic is already covered in the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. 16. Further, learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the relevant Rules applicable for appointment and selection of clerk in Junior High Schools, i.e., the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984, reference has been made to Clause 2 (G), which defines the Committee of Management, Rule 3 which provides for appointment of clerks and Class D employees for which the powers vest with the Committee of Management and Rule 16, which again refers to appointment by the Committee of Management that after receiving the approval to proceed with the selection, the Committee of Management would approve the candidate awarded maximum quality points by the Selection Committee and thereafter proceed to issue the appointment letter and in the event the first recommended candidate does not join then, the second or the third in the same sequence may be offered appointment. The relevant Rules have been referred by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission that there is no a resolution of the Committee of Management in approving the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 and it was only the Manager (respondent No. 5) who had on his own proceeded to approve and issue appointment to the respondent No. 6. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants are baseless, contrary to the record and have no substance. 18. We have examined the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material on record. With regard to the first argument that the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and the learned single Judge have not dealt with the various points raised by the appellants in their representation dated 4.4.2018, we may record that having perused the same what we find is that the main ground of attack is that there is no resolution of the Committee of Management approving the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6. 19. From a perusal of the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and that of the learned single Judge, what is reflected is that there is a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 5.9.2017 and it is on the basis of the said resolution that the appointment of the respondent No. 6 has been made and the papers were forwarded to the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur for consideration. 20. From the record it also transpires that the appellants are alleging that the resolution dated 5.9.2017 is a forged and frivolous document. In fact it is alleged that there is no resolution of the Committee of Management approving the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6. Further, in support of the submissions we have also been taken to another resolution dated 13.1.2018 said to be of the Committee of Management in which the Committee of Management has apparently resolved that the Manager was proceeding on his own to make selection and appointment on the post of clerk for which no permission has been granted by the Committee of Management and any such action taken by the Manager should be condemned. 21. 21. What we find from the record is that the President and the Secretary have joined hands against the Manager and in the process the appointment of the respondent No. 6 has been put in jeopardy. Respondent No. 6 is being harassed on account of the dispute between the appellants and respondent No. 5. 22. Certain other facts have been stated by the counsel for the respondents, which we do not wish to record in the proceedings against the President and the Secretary and on the other hand the President and the Secretary have been making allegations against the respondent No. 5. Therefore, personal issues cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the present matter as it relates to the issue as to whether the appointment of respondent No. 6 has been validly made in accordance to the procedure prescribed or not. 23. From the records as already recorded above, there was material before the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur who dealt with the same and found that the appointment was in accordance to the procedure prescribed and accordingly gave approval. Insofar as the contents of the 15 paragraphs of the representation are concerned, merely because 15 paragraphs are stated does not mean that each and every paragraph of the representation has to be dealt with, but it is the crux of the objections raised that has to be dealt with and which has been duly taken into consideration by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur. Even the learned single Judge has considered the material on record and has found that the appointment was validly made in accordance to the prescribed procedure. 24. The three case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are of no help as the Educational Authority i.e., District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and the learned single Judge have recorded reasons while deciding the matter. 25. Insofar as the violation of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 20.2.2018 are concerned, what is to be noticed is that the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur afforded opportunity to the President and the representation was considered and also oral hearing was afforded, however, as no substance was found in the representation or in the oral hearing the same was rejected. Thus the submission that no opportunity has been afforded to the President is also not borne out from the record. 26. Thus the submission that no opportunity has been afforded to the President is also not borne out from the record. 26. Reference to the Rules regarding appointment of clerk in a Junior High School has already been dealt with and the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur as well as the learned Single Judge found nothing wrong in the procedure, therefore, the said argument also stands rejected. 27. For all the reasons recorded above, the Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.