HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11733 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Shri Pandit S. Chandra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Assistant Director (Basic), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya whereby the suspension of Committee of Management, Jairam Janta Junior High School, Ramnagar, Ambedkar Nagar has been revoked. By means of an earlier order dated 10.10.2024, the Managing Committee of the aforesaid institution was suspended and an authorized controller was appointed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Managing Committee was suspended and the authorized controller was appointed keeping in view the irregularities being committed by the Managing Committee. As per him, the irregularities are still continuing yet the suspension has been revoked. He has further submitted that the Managing Committee had earlier been suspended on four occasions and on all those four occasions, authorized controller was appointed but after some time, the suspension was revoked and the powers of Managing Committee were restored but the Managing Committee is persisting with its illegal actions. 4. Opposing the writ petition, Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 has raised Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Singh, Ananya Singh, Shilpi Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shyam Kanhaiya Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) a preliminary objection stating that the petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee which has been restored by the impugned order. The petitioner may be annoyed by the impugned order but he cannot be the person aggrieved by the impugned order as the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 does not cause any legal prejudice to the petitioner and it does not infringe any of legal rights of the petitioner. 5. In response to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being a founder member of the Society which has established the institution, the petitioner is aggrieved by mismanagement of the institution by the current Manager- the respondent No.6 as well as by the actions of the Committee of Management of the institution-the respondent No.7. 6. The Petitioner himself is a member of the Committee of Management-the respondent No.7. 8. In these circumstances, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the Committee of Management, he should raise his grievance in the meetings of the Committee but if the petitioner's view remains a minority view and he remains unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the actions of the Committee while still being a member of the Committee as no legal right of the petitioner would be infringed in that case. 9. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, suspension of the Committee of Management and appointment of authorized controller by the order dated 10.10.2024 has not yielded any results and the petitioner still continues to be dissatisfied by the functioning of the institution under administration of authorized controller. Continuance of authorized controller cannot be till perpetuity. The impugned order states that the District Basic Education Officer has submitted a report dated 14.05.2025 stating that as per a report submitted by the authorized controller- Block Education Officer, Bhiao, Ambedkar Nagar as also the report submitted by the suspended Manager, it would be proper to restore the Managing Committee. 10. In these circumstances, when the Assistant Director Education (Basic) has taken a decision to restore the Managing Committee of the institution after taking into consideration the report submitted by the authorized controller as well as by the suspended Managing Committee after continuation of authorized controller for a considerable period of time and WRIC No. 11733 of 2025 2 the decision to revoke a suspension of authorized controller does not infringe any legally enforceable rights of the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the order restoring the powers of Managing Committee of the institution. 11. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. December 8, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 11733 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench