Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management National Inter ... vs The State Of U.P. And 69 Others on 6 July, 2022
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
***
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 214 of 2022
(Arising out of Writ - C No. 6906 of 2021)
Committee of Management, National Inter College through its Manager Afaq Ahmad
.............. Appellant
Through :-
Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Advocate for the appellant
v/s
The State of U.P. and others
.............. Respondents
Through :-
Mr. A.K. Ray, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sankalp Narain, Advocate for respondent nos.5 to 70
CORAM :
HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The Joint Director of Education, First Region, Meerut thought that when there are two or more rival Committees of Management, who claim to be validly elected to office, he could exercise his powers under Section 16-A(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921; not otherwise. He also seems to have thought that if there is a complainant assailing the validity of an elected management, he could go into its validity if there was a direction to that effect made by this Court. About the first part of the Joint Director's opinion, we find that he was wrong on facts and about the second part, he was in error about the law.
2. The facts in this case show that the last undisputed elections to the Committee of Management of National Inter College, Shikarpur, District Bulandshahr, the institution being governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, ''the Act'), were held on 29.10.2017. The Committee had a term of three years and one month. This term ended on 28.11.2020. The outgoing Committee of Management say that they called a meeting of the General Body to hold the next elections, scheduled for 14.07.2020 through a notice dated 04.07.2020. The said meeting and the contemplated elections could not be held on the said date due to lack of quorum. The meeting was adjourned. This event appears to have prompted 19 Members of the General Body of the Society to seek permission of the District Inspector of Schools to hold a meeting of the General Body to conduct the next elections. This permission was sought by 19 Members of the General Body and they stated that they were more than 1/10th of the General Body Membership. The District Inspector of Schools put the 19 applicants to notice alone and passed an order dated 14.08.2020, scheduling an election meeting for 31.08.2020. The election meeting was convened on 16.10.2020, wherein, 39 out of 110 Members of the General Body (of the Society) participated. The result of these elections was approved and recognized by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 01.10.2020.
3. There was a parallel election convened by Members of the General Body, where the election programme was circulated on 25.08.2020 and the elections were held on 08.10.2020. These proceedings were submitted for approval and recognition to the District Inspector of Schools as well.
4. The Committee of Management, whose elections were first permitted and then recognized by the District Inspector of Schools vide orders dated 14.08.2020 and 01.10.2020, respectively, is represented by its Manager, Afaq Ahmad. The rival Committee of Management, who claims to have held elections on 08.10.2020, is represented by Firoz Khan, the Manager shown to be elected in elections. The faction of the management led by Afaq Ahmad are the appellant to this appeal, whereas the faction represented and led by Firoz Khan are the writ petitioner-respondents, who are 65 in number, excluding the jural presence of the Committee of Management represented by Firoz Khan.
5. The District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order regarding the elections claimed by the Committee of Management led by Firoz Khan, apparently so, as he had already passed an order on October 1, 2020, recognizing the management led by Afaq Ahmad. The petitioner-respondents to this appeal approached the Joint Director of Education, invoking his powers under Section 16-A(7) of the Act. They apparently asserted that it was a case where there was a dispute with respect to the management of the institution and it was he who had to decide that dispute; else it was the Regional Level Committee, which would exercise the powers of the Joint Director of Education under the Statute, with the Joint Director of Education as its head, in terms of the Government Order dated 20.10.2008, that could decide a dispute about the management.
6. The Joint Director of Education by his order dated 31.12.2020 neither decided the dispute himself nor placed it before the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated September 2, 2008. He held that the power under Section 16-A(7) of the Act can be exercised by the Regional Level Committee with the aid of the Government Order if there were two parallel Committees of Management constituted; else it could be exercised if the High Court, by a direction issued in a writ petition, ordered the competent Authority to decide. The competent Authority mentioned in the order dated 31.12.2020 appears to be a reference to the Regional Level Committee or the Joint Director, in either case exercising jurisdiction under Section 16-A(7) of the Act.
7. The two orders dated 14.08.2020 and 01.10.2020 passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the Joint Director of Education were impugned by the writ petitioner-respondents in Writ - C No. 6906 of 2021. The learned Single Judge, before whom the writ petition aforesaid came up, declined to interfere with the orders dated 14.08.2020 and 01.10.2020 on ground that these had recognized elections held by the appellant, the process whereof had been completed. Apparently, the learned Single Judge did not disturb the orders passed in favour of the appellant's elections, inasmuch as the District Inspector of Schools had recognized one set of elections before the rival claim was laid before him. And, after the rival claim was laid, the District Inspector of Schools would have no jurisdiction. It would lie under the Statute, with the Joint Director of Education or with the Regional Level Committee exercising those statutory powers in terms of the Government Order dated 20.10.2008. The learned Single Judge, therefore, scrutinized the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the Joint Director of Education, declining to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 16-A(7) of the Act and refusing to place the matter before the Regional Level Committee. The learned Judge has quashed the last mentioned order by the judgment and order impugned and directed the Regional Level Committee to issue notice to all affected parties, hear them and pass orders, preferably within a period of three months the date the claim was instituted before the Joint Director of Education, First Region, Meerut.
8. Aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.
9. Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sankalp Narain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-respondents nos. 5 to 70 and Mr. A.K. Ray, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4.
10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has erred in quashing the order passed by the Joint Director of Education, inasmuch as the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that it was the appellant alone who was competent to hold elections, once permitted by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 14.08.2020. No one else could hold a parallel election, valid enough to bring into existence a dispute about rival committees meriting a reference to the Joint Director of Education or to the Regional Level Committee under Section 16-A(7) of the Act read with the Government Order dated 20.10.2008. Learned Counsel for the appellant emphasizes that there was only one election in existence on or after 01.10.2020 and the subsequent elections held by the writ petitioner-respondents on 08.10.2020 had no semblance of legitimacy worth consideration as a rival claim.
11. Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents, on the other hand, submits that there was a substantial issue about the validity of the elections held by a small group of Members of the General Body, who had virtually tricked the District Inspector of Schools into granting an ex parte permission and then an ex parte recognition. The petitioner-respondents had no opportunity or notice to contest the appellant's claimed elections when the permission was granted by the District Inspector of Schools or when the elections held were recognized. In his submission, there is a substantial and bona fide dispute that requires to be summarily determined by the Joint Director of Education or the Regional Level Committee in the exercise of their powers under Section 16-A(7) of the Act read with the Government Order under reference.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties and perused the record.
13. It appears to us that before the learned Single Judge it was contended that a reference under Section 16-A(7) of the Act read with the Government Order dated 20.10.2008 could be made before the District Inspector of Schools decided upon the validity of elections and recognized it, and not thereafter. It was also contended that the Regional Level Committee could decide on the basis of a reference made by the District Inspector of Schools alone, in case the District Inspector of Schools felt that there was a legal impediment in attesting the signatures of the Manager claimed on the basis of an election held. It was urged that no private reference of the dispute to the Joint Director of Education and a fortiori to the Regional Level Committee could be made.
14. This part of the submission was negatived by the learned Single Judge based on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter College and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (8) ADJ 493. There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that the principle laid down in Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter College (supra) and the exposition of the legal position by the learned Single Judge on its basis is without the slightest flaw. The jurisdiction of the Joint Director of Education, or for that matter, the Regional Level Committee under Section 16-A(7) read with the Government Order dated 20.10.2008 is not dependent upon a reference made by the District Inspector of Schools alone. It all depends at what stage a dispute with respect to the management of the institution arises.
15. In the present case, the dispute arose after the appellant had secured recognition for the elections that they claim to have held on 31.08.2020 and recognized on 01.10.2020. The permission for the elections that was granted on 14.08.2020 and its later recognition on 01.10.2020 in the absence of the petitioner-respondents and without notice to them would not imbue those elections with the imprimatur of validity, merely because the appellant has stealthily approached the District Inspector of Schools and sought permission to hold elections. The elections held by them, for that reason alone, would not become infallible. This is not to say that the elections held by the appellant are unlawful in any manner. This is a question which the Joint Director of Education has to go into, sitting in the Regional Level Committee, exercising power under Section 16-A(7) of the Act read with the Government Order dated 20.10.2008. He would be required to decide the issue on the basis of evidence placed before him by parties regarding the validity of their respective elections claimed. In any eventuality, the Joint Director of Education, or for that matter, the Regional Level Committee cannot abdicate their obligations under the Statute to summarily determine the dispute with regard to the management of an institution governed by the Act. They are required to decide, albeit summarily, the validity of the elections rivally claimed by the appellant and the petitioner-respondents, on the basis of which, recognition would follow, subject, of course, to the determination of a Court of competent jurisdiction.
16. In the opinion of this Court, there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Allahabad 06.07.2022 Anoop Whether the order is speaking :
Yes/No Whether the order is reportable :
Yes🗸/No