Implementing superior directives does not constitute an independent decision for the purpose of determining administrative bias.

The appellant challenged an order dated September 7, 2009, issued by Respondent No. 3 (Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Region), which invalidated the induction of 500 persons as members of the general body of Nehru Rashtriya Inter College between 2002 and 2005

A learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on April 23, 2015, upholding the finding that the inductions were invalid

The appellant contended that the officer who passed the 2009 order, Mr. N.S. Rana, had previously dealt with the same dispute as the District Education Officer (DEO) via a communication dated May 28, 2004, and was thus disqualified from deciding the matter in a superior capacity

The appeal was briefly dismissed as infructuous but was restored after the court noted that life membership constitutes a continuing cause of action

1. Whether the order passed by Respondent No. 3 was legally sustainable given that the same officer had previously issued a communication regarding the membership dispute in 2004.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere in a membership dispute involving contested questions of fact under writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied the principle of natural justice regarding administrative bias, specifically whether an authority is "sitting in appeal over its own judgment"

It also referenced the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, regarding the scheme of administration

Furthermore, it relied on the established principle that writ jurisdiction is generally unsuitable for resolving disputed questions of fact or appreciation of evidence, especially when summary decisions by educational authorities can be challenged through civil remedies

The Court examined the nature of the communication dated May 28, 2004, issued by Mr. N.S. Rana in his capacity as DEO.

It observed that the 2004 letter was merely a ministerial act—a communication directing the Manager to implement instructions already issued by the Additional Regional Joint Director of Education

The Court found that Mr. Rana had not exercised independent application of mind or rendered a "judgment" in 2004; his first independent decision on the merits occurred only in the 2009 impugned order

Therefore, the allegation that he sat in judgment over his own previous decision was factually incorrect

Regarding the merits of the membership dispute, the Court noted that such issues involve complex factual evidence that educational authorities decide only summarily

It held that the communication by the DEO in 2004 did not constitute a prior judgment and thus did not vitiate the subsequent order passed by the same officer as Additional Director

The Court further held that since the dispute involved contested facts regarding society membership, the appellant is at liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies

Delay in filing the restoration application was condoned, and the appeal was restored before being dismissed on its merits