C/M Ravi Children Academy, Gonda Thru. Manager Shiv Murti Mishra and Another vs Regional Officer Central Board of Secondary Education Prayagraj U.P. and 3 Others

Heard Mr. Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prabhat Kumar for the respondent no.4, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for CBSC.

¶14

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that this petition is premature as no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that the direction has been issued to the Committee of Management (petitioner herein) and the direction is that the order dated 5th of August 2025 be cancelled, therefore, this affects the right of the Committee of Management regarding the appointment of an employee in the self-financed institution.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent from the impugned order itself that the direction is given to the petitioner herein, and if the same will be complied with, that would materially affect the right of the institution/petitioners as the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is without jurisdiction.

¶17

WRIA No. 11181 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

Consequently, preliminary objection is hereby rejected.

¶20

The challenge in the writ petition is laid to the impugned order dated 22nd of August 2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Gonda, whereby he directed to the institution concerned to cancel the order dated 5.8.2025 whereby the services of the respondent no.4 has been turned down.

¶21

The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the college is a self-financed institution and the District Inspector of Schools is not authorized in any statute or law to supervise or having control over such institutions regarding appointment etc. He submitted that the order impugned is beyond jurisdiction and the same is unsustainable.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶23

Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 submits that since a complaint was made before the district magistrate and the direction was given by the district magistrate and in response thereof, the District Inspect of Schools passed the order, thus, there is no ambiguity or error in the order impugned.

¶24

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is prima facie apparent that the District Inspector of Schools has passed an order on 22nd of August 2025, whereby a direction was given to the institution concerned to cancel the order dated 5th of August 2025, by virtue of which the services of one of the employees, Jitendra Prasad Dwivedi has been turned down. The fact remains that the institution in question is a selffinanced institution and there is no authority to the District Inspector of Schools to pass such orders. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is not permissible under the law.

¶25

Thus, matter requires consideration.

¶26

Let counter affidavit be filed by the State as well as the counsel for the respondent no.4 within a period of two weeks.

¶27

A week thereafter is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.\

¶28

List this matter on 16th of October 2025 at 2:15 pm.

¶29

The Office is directed to print the name of Mr. Prabhat Kumar as counsel for the respondent in the next cause list.

¶30

WRIA No. 11181 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 22nd of August 2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools Gonda, shall remain stayed.

¶33

It is perplexing fact that the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda has gone beyond his jurisdiction. This prima facie shows his lackness of knowledge regarding laws. The District Inspector of Schools shall file a personal affidavit to the fact as to why he has passed the order dated 22 August 2025.

¶34

October 7, 2025 Ram Murti

¶35

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M Ravi Children Academy, Gonda Thru. Manager Shiv Murti Mishra and Another v. Regional Officer Central Board of Secondary Education Prayagraj U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Ravi Children Academy, Gonda Thru. Manager Shiv Murti Mishra and Another v. Regional Officer Central Board of Secondary Education Prayagraj U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kanchan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashu Verma vs Union of India and 2 Others

Deepak Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kushal Pal Singh vs Sri Sanjay Prasad, Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt., Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Shankar Dubey vs Mr. Upendra Gupta, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sultanpur and 3 Others

Deepak Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others