Ministerial implementation of superior orders does not disqualify an authority from subsequent adjudication of the same dispute.

The appellant challenged an order passed by the Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Region (Respondent No. 3) dated 07.09.2009

The said order declared the induction of 500 members into the general body of Nehru Rashtriya Inter College between 2002 and 2005 as invalid

The appellant filed a writ petition (WPMS No. 1574 of 2009) arguing that Respondent No. 3 was incompetent to decide the matter because, in his previous capacity as District Education Officer (DEO), he had already issued an order on 28.05.2004 regarding the same dispute

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 23.04.2015, holding that the 2004 communication was not a quasi-judicial order

The appellant then moved this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the Additional Director of Education (Respondent No. 3) was legally barred from deciding the membership dispute on the grounds that he had previously adjudicated the matter as the District Education Officer, thereby sitting in appeal over his own order.

2. Whether a membership dispute involving contested questions of fact and evidence is appropriately resolved through summary proceedings by educational authorities or via civil remedies.

The court applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the doctrine that an adjudicator cannot sit in appeal over their own previous judgment

It also referenced the administrative framework of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (specifically Section 16-A) regarding the management of educational institutions

Furthermore, the court relied on the principle that educational authorities conduct summary inquiries into membership disputes, and such findings do not preclude the parties from seeking comprehensive relief through civil remedies when disputed questions of fact arise

The Court scrutinized the communication dated 28.05.2004 issued by Respondent No. 3 in his capacity as DEO

It observed that the document was not an independent decision or an exercise of quasi-judicial mind; rather, it was a mere administrative communication directing the College Manager to implement orders already passed by the Additional Regional Joint Director of Education

Since Respondent No. 3 had not applied his independent mind in 2004 but had simply acted as a conduit for a superior's directions, the Court held he was not "sitting over his own judgment" when he later passed the impugned order in 2009

Additionally, the Court noted that membership disputes involving appreciation of evidence are summary in nature when decided by educational authorities, and the appellant remains free to pursue a civil suit for a final determination of facts

The Court condoned the delay in filing the restoration application and restored the appeal to its original number before dismissing it on its merits

The appeal was dismissed, and it was clarified that the appellant could still avail himself of civil remedies to resolve the membership dispute