K.B. Asthana, J.
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is obvious from the facts of the case, as revealed by the material on record, that there are two factions in the body which manages the Kisan Inter College, Mohiuddinpur. There have been internecine differences and the usual story has been repeated in this Institution also that the rivalries amongst the members for securing power and position have culminated in the sordid state of affairs affecting prejudicially the students and the staff. It appears that the administration of the College was run at one time by Sri Bhopal Singh when some time in 1970 an award was given constituting the plaintiffs as the committee of management for a term of three years. This award was made a rule of the court. The President of this committee was one Sri Tara Singh and the Manager Sri Sheoraj Singh. But the spirit of accommodation and mutual respect and regard for each other amongst the members does not seem to have lasted and immediately afterwards allegations and counter-allegations began to be made by the factional groups, resulting in deterioration of the administration.
The Principal Sri M. B. Lal also became involved. It is alleged that on 27-8-1972 a meeting of the general body was called at which the defendant-opposite parties were constituted as the new managing committee with Sri Bhopal Singh as President and Sri Khacheru Sharma as the Manager. A piquant situation then seems to have arisen. Two managing committees began to claim to be in effective control of the management. The plaintiff's committee on certain charges suspended the principal Sri M. B. Lal, pending inquiry into his conduct. Naturally the defendant's committee started sympathising with the Principal. The plaintiff committee then filed the suit, giving rise to this revision, against the Principal and the defendant committee for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the management of the college. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction in the terms as prayed for in the plaint. The learned Civil Judge, trying the suit found that the Principal, Sri M. B. Lal, was in effective control of the office. He did not record any definite finding as to which of the committees was in the effective control of the management. He, however, held that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience being in favour of the defendants refused to grant a temporary injunction. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned Additional District Judge held that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case as they were legally under the award, which was made the rule of the court, in control of the management of the college and the plaintiff committee being empowered under the regulations to suspend the principal pending inquiry into his conduct the action taken by the said committee against the Principal was prima facie legal. The appeal was allowed and a temporary injunction restraining the Principal and the defendant committee was directed to be issued. The Principal Sri M. B. Lal and the President of the defendant committee have now come up in revision.
2. There is no doubt in my mind that In terms of the award which was made the rule of the Court the term of the plaintiff committee will not expire before December, 1973. It cannot be disputed that upto 20-8-1972 the plaintiff committee was in control of the management of the College. The dispute as to who is in effective management of the College, the plaintiff committee or the defendant committee, will relate to the period after 20-8-1972, but the suit was filed immediately after the meeting of the general body as alleged by the defendants. However, from the facts on record it appears that the defendant committee started disbursing the pay and other expenses of the College through its Manager Sri Khacharu Sharma. There is also an uncontroverted assertion that the grant-aid was received by the College through Sri Khacheru Sharma. The District Inspector of School has not approved the action taken by the plaintiff committee in suspending the Principal Sri M. B. Lal though, of course, there is no provision in the regulations to ask for the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools for suspending a Principal or Teacher pending inquiry. Then it also appears that there was a hunger strike by some of the students protesting against the action of the plaintiff committee suspending the Principal. All this shows that there prevails great unrest and resentment with the administration of this College. Even the previous award which was made the rule of the court had not satisfied the factions that existed and the award appears to have been overthrown. It is unfortunate. There appears to be a break-down in the leadership. The Principal Sri M. B. Lal seems to be an indirect victim of these factional fights which fact is borne out by the intervention of the District Inspector of Schools and the protest by the students.
It is no doubt the law that before a plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction he should establish a prima facie case, the irreparable injury apprehended and the balance of convenience in his favour. But it is always difficult to balance all these considerations on the facts and circumstances of each case, especially in suits for gaining control of the management and administration of educational institutions where the personal interest of the parties in some tangible property does not come up for adjudication before the court and at the same time the interest of many other persons not party to the suit are vitally affected. I have on previous occasions in case of this nature given expression to an opinion that a strict adherence to the settled principles for grant of interim injunction some times may not in the matters of management of educational institutions meet the requirements of the situation. I think a pragmatic view in such matter better subserves the ends of justice rather than sticking to the consideration culled out from decided cases involving adjudication of personal rights in tangible property.
3. Here are two rival groups of persons each claiming to be in legal charge of the management of the College. Here is a Principal Sri M. B. Lal who is found by the trial court in effective control of his office. The main object of the College is to hold tutorial classes as prescribed and prepare students for public examinations. With this main purpose and teaching activity in the College no member of the managing committee is directly concerned. The educational activity in a College is entirely in the hands of the Principal and the teachers under the supervision of the Educational Inspectorate. It is this main activity of the College which has to be preserved so that the interest of the teachers and taught may not suffer. Pending the suit between these two rival groups the duty of the court is to see that the educational activity of the College does not suffer. There are some charges against the Principal. How far they are serious is not a question with which the court is concerned at this stage but the Principal has been found to be in effective control of the College. I think he should continue effectively to remain in the office of the Principal and administer the institution as a Principal confined to his duties under the Intermediate Education Act and the regulations made thereunder. As regards the other affairs of the administration of the College. I think in the circumstances of the case the District Inspector of Schools should be in over all charge assisted by an advisory committee consisting of Sarvasri Bhopal Singh, Tara Singh, Sheoraj Singh and Khacheru Sharma. The District Inspector of Schools will have full powers as Chairman of the advisory committee to take independent decisions at his discretion in the interest of the College, its staff and students.
4. The result is that this application in revision is partly allowed. The order of the court below is modified. The plaintiffs' application for a temporary injunction against Sri M. B. Lal, defendant No. 1 in the suit, stands dismissed while all defendants other than Bhopal Singh, defendant No. 2, and Khacheru Sharma, defendant No. 4 will remain restrained from interfering with the management of the Institution.
5. As far as the plaintiffs are concerned, I have already appointed Sri Sheoraj Singh as one of the members of the advisory committee. Any suggestion which any of the plaintiffs wants to make in regard to the efficient management of the Institution may be conveyed through Sri Sheoraj Singh to the District Inspector of Schools and none of the plaintiffs will actively interfere with the management. The Principal Sri M. B. Lal, if the District Inspector of Schools so desires, will act as the Secretary of the advisory committee.
6. There will be no order for cots.