Ministerial communication of superior orders is not prior adjudication disqualifying an official from subsequent decision-making.

The appellant challenged an order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Respondent No. 3), which declared the induction of 500 members into the general body of Nehru Rashtriya Inter College, Manglore, between 2002 and 2005 as invalid

The appellant contended that the presiding officer, Mr. N.S. Rana, had previously dealt with the same dispute on 28.05.2004 in his capacity as the District Education Officer (DEO) and was thus disqualified from adjudicating the matter in his higher capacity as Additional Director

A Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition on 23.04.2015, finding that the 2004 communication was not a substantive order but a ministerial act

The present intra-court appeal was initially dismissed as infructuous but was restored upon the appellant’s application, asserting that life membership constitutes a continuing cause of action

1. Whether the appeal should be restored and the delay in filing the restoration application condoned

2. Whether the order passed by Respondent No. 3 was void on the ground that the officer sat in appeal over his own previous decision

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with findings regarding membership disputes involving disputed questions of fact

The Court applied the principle of administrative law distinguishing between a "quasi-judicial decision" involving independent application of mind and a "ministerial communication" issued to implement superior directions

It further referenced the procedural framework of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (specifically Section 16-A mentioned in the underlying orders) regarding the management of educational institutions

The Court relied on the principle that summary decisions by educational authorities on membership disputes do not bar civil remedies where disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence are involved

The Court examined the communication dated 28.05.2004 issued by the then DEO and concluded that it did not constitute an independent decision or an exercise of quasi-judicial power

The text of the communication revealed it was merely an instruction to the College Manager to comply with the directions already issued by the Regional Joint Director of Education regarding membership and scheme amendments

Therefore, when the officer later passed the impugned order as Additional Director, he was not "sitting over his own judgment" because his independent application of mind occurred for the first time in the 2009 proceedings

Regarding the validity of the 500 members, the Court noted that such disputes are factual in nature and the authorities' findings are summary

The Court determined that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for re-appreciating evidence in membership disputes, suggesting that the aggrieved party should instead seek relief through civil courts

On the merits, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's decision that there was no legal infirmity in Respondent No. 3 passing the impugned order

The Court held that the membership dispute involved contested facts better suited for civil remedies

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly