Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 9]

Allahabad High Court

Committee Of Management Janta Inter ... vs Regional Deputy Director Of Education ... on 1 February, 1999

Equivalent citations: 1999(2)AWC1090, (1999)1UPLBEC524, AIR 1999 ALLAHABAD 231, 1999 ALL. L. J. 1613, 1999 A I H C 3868, 1999 (2) ALL WC 1090, 1999 (2) ESC 978, 1999 (1) UPLBEC 524

Author: O.P. Garg

Bench: O.P. Garg

JUDGMENT

O.P. Garg J.

1. These are two identical connected writ petitions by which the order dated 19.6.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (for Short 'D.I.O.S.'), Azamgarh has been challenged. The difference in the two writ petitions is that over and above the relief claimed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21044 of 1997, an additional prayer for appointing the Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the institution during the pendency of the writ petition has been made in the subsequent Writ Petition No. 26286 of 1997. Since the controversy involved in the two writ petitions requires scrutiny of the validity or otherwise of the same order and the pleadings of the parties are almost identical, it is proposed to decide these two writ petitions together by this common judgment. Reference to various annexures is with regard to the documents filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21044 of 1997.

2. There is a registered society known as Janta Shiksha Parish ad under the aegis of which a recognised and aided educational institution, namely, Janta Inter College which is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is run at Bagar Gosai, Haraiya, in district Azamgarh. Administration of the institution is run and managed by Committee of Management which is constituted under the duly approved Scheme of Administration. It is an admttted fact that the last elections to constitute a new Committee of Management were held on 29.5.1994 in which Shiv Shankar Singh and Amresh Chandra Pandey-petltloner No. 2 were elected respectively as the president and Manager. The Committee of Management of which Amresh Chandra Pandey was the Manager, was duly recognised on 15.7.1994 on which date his signatures were attested. The term of the Committee of Management is three years.

3. The case of the petitioners is that till the elections are held to constitute the new Committee of Management in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, the outgoing committee is to continue and that the term of three years is to be reckoned with effect from 15.7.1994 on which date the erstwhile committee came into being. With a view to constitute a new Committee of Management, a meeting was called on 10.5.1997 in which it was resolved that the elections be held during the period 20th to 30th June, 1997. Subsequently. It was resolved that the elections be held on 22.6.1997 and on 25.5.1997, the D.I.O.S. was informed of the said fact by Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A list, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, of 79 members, who were entitled to vote was also sent to the D.I.O.S. Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, Advocate was appointed as Election Officer and an agenda notice. Annexure-9, was circulated on 30.5.1997 which provided that nomination shall be filed on 20.6.1997 and that the date of polling after withdrawal of nominations by the specified date shall take place, if necessary, on 22.6.1997. A copy of the agenda item was also sent to the D.I.O.S. on 29.5.1997. It was also published in 'Dainlk Dev Bratta', a local dally, on 31.5.1997. On the same day, a communication was sent to the D.I.O.S.. Annexure-12, to nominate an observer for the elections to be held on 22.6.1997. This letter was received in the office of the D.I.O.S. on 2.6.1997. The Regional Deputy Director of Education (for short 'R.D.D.E.') was also informed about the convention of the general body for the purpose of election vide letter dated 31.5.1997, Annexure-13 to the writ petition. It appears that there was a move afoot to hold parallel elections by one Jagdish Dubey on the basis of the list of 215 members of the general body. The petitioners, apprehensive as they were, informed the R.D.D.E.. Azamgarh by addressing him letter dated 3.6.1997. and prayed that the D.I.O.S. be required to prevent the alleged elections which are to take place on 4th/5th June, 1997. Smt. Sarita Yadav. R.D.D.E., Azamgarh brought the above facts to the notice of the D.I.O.S. by addressing him a letter dated 4.6.1997, Annexure-15. and directed him to ensure that the elections are held according to the amended Scheme of Administration by the members of the general body. On 9.6.1997 a letter, Annexure-16, was sent again making a request to the D.I.O.S. to nominate an observer. This letter was followed by reminders dated 13.6.1997 and 18.6.1997. Annexures-17 and 18. The D.I.O.S. did not nominate any observer. He, however, sent a communication dated 12.6.1997 addressed to the petitioner No. 2. Amresh Chandra Pandey, Jagdlsh Dubey and the Principal of the college to appear before him for hearing in connection with the managerial election of the institution. These persons were directed to produce the necessary documents in original, in support of their respective contentions. The details of the documents which they were required to produce, in original, are listed at Sl. Nos. 1 to 7 in the letter aforesaid. On the date fixed, i.e.. 19.6.1997, a meeting was held. It appears that the elections were held to constitute the new Committee of Management at the Instance of the outgoing Committee of Management on 22.6.1997 in which Shiv Shankar Singh and Bechu Prasad Gupta were respectively elected as Manager and President of the Committee. On 23.6.1997, the D.I.O.S. was informed of the result of the election with the prayer that the new Committee of Management of which Shiv Shankar Singh had been elected as Manager, be recognised. According to the petitioners, they had received the letter, Annexure-22. purporting to be dated 19.6.1997 on 25.6.1997 whereby recognition to the Committee of Management, of which Indrasan Rai was alleged to have been elected as Manager, was recognised and his signatures had been attested. According to the petitioners, the letter, which was received, on 25.6.1997 was ante-dated to 19.6.1997 by the D.I.O.S. deliberately to help the alleged newly elected Committee of Management of which Indrasan Rai is said to have been elected as Manager. It is alleged that Jagdlsh Dubey, who was present in the meeting dated 10.5.1997 and who had signed the proceedings book, had no authority or competence to hold the parallel elections, which are alleged to have taken place on 5.6.1997. The petitioners have gone on to allege that the then D.I.O.S. has colluded with Jagdlsh Dubey and others and it was at his behest that Illegal elections had taken place on 5.6.1997 and which have come to be recognised by him. It is prayed that the Impugned order dated 19.6.1997, Annexure-22 to the writ petition, passed by the D.I.O.S., Azamgarh be quashed and that the respondents be commanded not to take any action in pursuance of the aforesaid order and should refrain from Interfering in the functioning of the petitioners to manage the affairs of the institution.

4. In the subsequent Writ Petition No. 26286 of 1997, on the above allegations, it has further been prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the institution during the pendency of the writ petition.

5. The contesting respondent, i.e., Committee of Management, of which Indrasan Rai is alleged to have been elected as Manager, has filed counter-affidavit. The stand taken by the respondent No. 4 is that the election held on 5.6.1997 is legal and valid as it is clearly in accordance with the provisions of the amended Scheme of Administration and the directions issued by the R.D.D.E. as well as D.I.O.S. that since the election had already taken place on 5.6.1997 and the Committee of Management constituted in pursuance of the said elections has come to be recognised by a detailed order passed by the D.I.O.S. after hearing the petitioners also and the signatures of Indrasan Rai, the newly elected manager, have been attested, the question of holding the elections on 22.6.1997 did not arise and, therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the present writ petitions. Rejoinder and supplementary affidavits have also been filed.

6. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. R. G. Padia. learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Padia on behalf of the respondent No. 4-Committee of Management of which Sri Indrasan Rai is the Manager, at considerable length.

7. To begin with, it may be mentioned that there is no dispute about the fact that the last election to constitute Committee of Management was held on 29.5.1994 in which Shiv Shankar Singh and Amresh Chandra Pandey-petitioner No. 2 were elected respectively as the President and the Manager of the Committee of Management. It is also an admitted fact that the term of the Committee of Management was three years and after the expiry of the period of three years a fresh election was to be held to constitute a new committee. The dispute is with regard to the fact whether the outgoing Committee of Management has ceased to function on the expiry of the term of three years or it continued to function till such time it was substituted by newly elected Committee of Management. This aspect of the matter requires scrutiny of the Scheme of Administration, which was at the relevant time in force. According to the petitioners, there is a Scheme of Administration, which was duly approved by the Director of Education by order dated 1.6.1998 and that since then no amendments have been effected in the said Scheme of Administration. A copy of the Scheme of Administration as approved on 1.6.1968 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Clause 9 of the said Scheme of Administration deals with the term of the Committee of Management which provides that the term of the elected or nominated members of the Committee of Management shall be three years. There is no provision in the said scheme that after the expiry of the period of three years, the outgoing Committee of Management shall cease to exist. The stand taken by the petitioners on the point has been seriously challenged by the respondents. It is asserted that after the commencement of Act No. 1 of 1981, the Scheme of Administration stands amended in view of the provisions of Section 16CC and 16CCC of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under the aforesaid provisions the approved amended Scheme of Administration shall come into force and the elections were to be held in pursuance of the amended scheme of administration. A reference was made to the letter dated 20.10.1994. Annexure-C.A. 2 to the counter-affidavit issued by the D.I.O.S., Azamgarh to all the Managers and Principals of Higher Secondary/ Intermediate Schools in Azamgarh district which pertained to the subject of constitution of Committees of Management. It was directed that the Committee of Management shall be constituted in accordance with the amended Scheme of Administration. According to the amended provisions, the term of the Committee of Management is three years and the office bearers have further been allowed to continue for another period of one month and after the expiry of the period of three years and one month, the term of the Committee of Management shall ipso facto come to an end. In para 5, the procedure for election to constitute a new Committee of Management has been laid down. The legal position is that if the term of the Committee of Management of three years and one month has not expired, then the same Committee of Management has to hold the elections as has been held in Committee of Management, Town Inter College. Mohamdabad Gohna. Man v. D.I.O.S. and others. 1994 ACJ 420. In case where the outgoing Committee of Management fails to hold the elections, a procedure has been prescribed to overcome the impasse. Para 5 provides that in case outgoing President and the Manager do not call a meeting for election, in that event, one third of the members of the general body shall request the President and the Manager to convene a meeting of the general body. In the event of the failure of the outgoing President and the Manager to call a meeting on the requisition by one third of the members, a meeting of the general body shall be convened after giving information and seeking approval of the D.I.O.S. In that meeting, the members of the general body shall nominate a President and chalk out a programme for holding the elections on a particular date. In sub-para (2) of para 5, further steps required to be taken to accomplish the task of election have been laid down. Now the question is whether the said amended Scheme of Administration was in vogue at the time when the new elections were to take place. It is true that no automatic amendment in the Scheme of Administration is visualised unless it falls within the clutches of Section 16CC of the Act. In Committee of Management, Sahid Mangal Pandey Inter College, Nagwa, district Ballia and others, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1348, it has been held that no automatic amendment is visualised except when it falls within clutches of Section 16CC of, the Act. If the Amendment suggested by Director in Scheme of Administration is not carried out by the Committee of Management, such amendment cannot be deemed to have been come Into existence. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the D.I.O.S.. or for that matter, the R.D.D.E. had no authority to enforce the draft of amended Scheme of Administration without the concurrence of Committee of Management is otiose. With the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by Smt. Indrasan Rai-respondent No. 4, a copy of the letter dated 25.1.1985 sent by the R.D.D.E. to the petitioners' Institution has been filed as Annexure SCA-3. A copy of the letter sent by the then Manager Brija Rat dated 20,2.1985 has been filed as Annexure-SCA-1, which indicates that the amended Scheme of Administration as circulated by the R.D.D.E. had been accepted and an assurance was held out that in future the elections would be held according to the amended Scheme of Administration. In view of the U. P. Act No. 1 of 1981. letters of the R.D.D.E. and the D.I.O.S. as well as unequivocal and categorical acceptance by the then Manager Brija Rai. the amended Scheme of Administration came into force and in the light of the amended scheme, the Committee of Management, which was admittedly elected on 29.5.1994 had ceased to exist after the expiry of the period of three years and if the outgoing committee failed to hold the elections well before the expiry of its term, it forfeited its right to hold the elections.

8. The allied controversy which would have a telling effect on the fate of the case is the date on which the term of the Committee of Management elected on 29.5.1994 shall commence. According to the petitioners, the committee was recognised by the D.I.O.S. on 15.7.1994 on which date, the signatures of the Manager Amresh Chandra Pandey-petitioner No. 2 came to be attested. On behalf of the respondents, this contention has been repelled. It is asserted that the three years' term of the Committee of Management is to be reckoned right from the date on which the committee was elected, i.e.. on 29.5.1994. In nutshell, according to the petitioners, the term of the Committee of Management was to continue upto 15.7,1997 while according to the respondents. It came to an end on 29.5.1997. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision or a Division Bench of this Court in Gtrish Chandra v. Rajendra Singh and others, 1996 (3) ESC 152 (All). I have carefully gone through the various observations made in the said decision and find that they are not applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case for one simple reason that in Girish Chandra's case (supra), there was a specific provision that a newly elected Committee of Management shall assume only after the D.I.O.S. has accorded its approval. On the basis of this explicit and specific provisions; it was held that the term of the Committee of Management shall be reckoned from the date on which the committee was recognised by the D.I.O.S. In the instant case, there is no such specific provision and. therefore, we have to fall back on the earlier decisions in which a distinct view contrary to Girish Chandra's case (supra) has been taken. Undoubtedly, the term of the Committee of Management is to be governed with reference to the provisions made in the Scheme of Administration. The amended Scheme of Administration, as it stands and applies to the petitioners' institution, provides that the period of the Committee of Management and its office bearers shall be three years and that after the expiry of the period of three years, the office bearers shall continue to function for a further period of one month. In case during the period of three years and one month, the newly constituted committee, according to the various provisions of the Scheme of Administration, does not take over the charge, the term of the existing committee shall automatically come to an end. The point is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Jungli Baba Intermediate College, Garhwa, district Ballia and another v. Dy. Director of Education Vth Region. Varanasi and others. (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1183. A plea was raised in that case that the Committee of Management shall be deemed to have entered in office from the date the D.I.O.S. approved the scheme or the signatures of the Manager were attested. The question, raised, therefore, was as to from which date the period of Committee of Management would start running, i.e.. either from the date of elections validly held where the period of earlier Committee of Management had already come to an end prior to this date and there being no dispute, or, from the date of the elected Committee of Management takes over the charge of the management. The purpose of prescribing the period of three years as being the term of Committee of Management is that it should function for the period prescribed in the Scheme of Administration. If for some reasons, even after election, the newly elected Committee of Management is not able to take charge from the earlier Committee of Management because of stay order or otherwise or from the Prabandh Sanchalak, the term of that Committee of Management would not commence. However, the day such elected Committee of Management takes over charge, and/or starts functioning as such, without any impediment, that the period of three years starts running. This period of three years in no case can be extended even if intermittently such Committee of Management is not able to discharge its function on account of in fighting litigation between the parties or on account of stay orders passed by the Court. It would be worthwhile to extract below, for ready reference, the oft quoted observations made in Jangli Baba's case (supra) :

".....Attestation is only for the purpose of distribution of salary under the Payment of Salary Act. It is true that the functioning of the Committee of Management is varied and is not confined merely for the purposes of distribution of salary and thus the attestation of the signatures by the District Inspector of Schools could not be the starting point of the life of the Committee of Management. It may be in a given case from the date of the election's result are declared as urged by the respondents. However, in case the election took place earlier than the prescribed period of the earlier Committee of Management coming to an end. In such cases, it cannot be said that the period started from the date of election. Question, therefore, would be as to what would be the date which can be said that the period of the management committee starts. We find that there is nothing in the Act, Rules or under the Scheme of Administration. However, we feel after perusing the Scheme of Administration, the various provisions of the Act and the Rules that its period would start running either from the date of election validly held where the period of earlier Committee of Management has already come to an end prior to this date and there being no dispute or from the date the elected Committee of Management takes over the charge of the Management."

The above controversy came to be considered in the case of Committee of Management, Brig. Hoshiyar Singh Memorial Uchchatar Madhyamik Vtdyalaya, Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar and another v. Dy. Director of Education 1st Region. Meerut and others, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 149. It was a case in which the old Committee of Management held elections of the new Committee of Management after the expiry of its term of three years and one month. It was held that according to the Scheme of Administration of the college as approved under Section 16A of the Act. the life of the Committee of Management is three years and one month, after the expiry of which its term will come to an end automatically even if the new Committee of Management has not been elected. It is settled law that life of the Committee of Management comes to an end after the expiry of three years and one month and it is not open to it or its office bearers to hold election of the new Committee of Management thereafter, The contention that the term of the Committee of Management commences from the date of the attestation of signatures of the Manager of the newly elected Committee of Management was negatived.

9. In the Instant case, there was no Impediment, whatsoever, in taking over the charge on the date of the election itself, i.e., on 29.5.1994, and, therefore, the term was to commence from the said date and not from 15.7.1994 on which date the signatures of the manager-petitioner No. 2 were attested by the D.I.O.S.

10. Having thus cleared the decks from the cobwebs about the above controversies, now I proceed further to determine the question whether the respondent-Committee of Management alleged to have been elected on 5.6.1997 could be legally recognised by the D.I.O.S. on 19.6.1997. The petitioners obviously failed to initiate the election process to constitute the new Committee of Management well within time as stipulated in the amended Scheme of Administration. The term of the outgoing Committee of Management expired on 29.5.1997, it was only a few days before expiry of the term that a meeting is alleged to have been held for finalising the programme for election. On the other hand. It is asserted by the respondent No. 4 that when the President and the Manager failed to convene a meeting to chalk out a programme to hold the elections in spite of the letter dated 3.4.1997 sent to them, followed by reminder dated 26.4.1997, a notice was circulated to all the members of the general body on 27.4.1997 to convene a meeting of the general body on 4.5.1997. In the meeting held on 4.5.1997. Jagdish Dubey was nominated and authorised to hold the elections and Amarjeet Rat, Advocate was appointed as Election Officer. On 20.5.1997. Jagdlsh Dubey sent a letter to the D.I.O.S. for nominating an observer to be present at the time of the elections which were to take place on 5.6.1997. The election programme was published in the local dally 'Dewal Dainik Samachar' and Intimation to all the 215 members, the list of which was published on 28.10.1996 under the authority of Amresh Chandra Pandey, Manager and Shiv Shankar Singh, President, was sent and with their participation, election had taken place on 5th June 1997 in which Jagdish Dubey was elected as President and Indrasan Rai as Manager. It appears that the present petitioners were making a demand for appointment of observer by D.I.O.S. so that he may remain present in the election meeting, which was convened for 22.6.1997. Obviously, the D.I.O.S. was in a fix for one simple reason that on behalf of Jagdlsh Dubey and Indrasan Rat. It was asserted that election had already taken place on 5.6.1997 and the new committee, which was elected, may be recognised while there was a demand on behalf of the petitioner to nominate an observer for the elections, which were due to take place on 22.6.1997. Faced with this situation, the D.I.O.S. In his wisdom sent a letter dated 12.6.1997 to Amresh Chandra Pandey, Jagdlsh Dubey and Principal of the College, a copy of which is Annexure-10, whereby he required them to be present before him on 10.6.1997 along with requisite documents. Admittedly, the present petitioners, Jagdish Dubey or their representatives appeared before the D.I.O.S. on 19.6.1997. The rival parties were heard and ultimately by order dated 19.6.1997, a copy of which is Annexure-22 was passed by the D.I.O.S. recognising the Committee of Management which was elected on 5.6.1997. Signatures of Indrasan Rai were also attested in this manner, the Committee of Management -respondent No. 4 came into existence and started managing the affairs of the institution.

11. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that an unsavoury feature of the case, which stares at our face, at intervals. Is the fact of issuance of the letter. Annexure-22, by ante-dating it to 19.6.1997 giving the impression that the meeting is to take place with a view to decide the schedule of the elections to constitute a new Committee of Management. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is not correct and is against the facts as obtaining on the record. On 3.6.1997 Ram Gati Singh, President of the society had addressed the letter. Annexure-14, to the R.D.D.E. mentioning therein that some sake elections are to take place on 4/5.6.1997 and that the unauthorised persons be prevented from holding elections and the D.I.O.S. be directed not to nominate an observer for the purpose. On the basis of this letter, the Joint Director of Education of the region issued a letter on 4.6.1997, a copy of which is Annexure-15 to the writ petition. On the other hand, Indrasan Rai who had been elected on 5.6.1997 had sent papers to the D.I.O.S. for recognising the Committee of Management of which he was elected as Manager. An emphatic request was being made to the D.I.O.S. for attesting the signatures of Indrasan Rai. Finding himself in a quandary, the D.I.O.S. sent a letter dated 12.6.1397. Annexure-19 to Jagdish Dubey. President of the newly elected Committee of Management, and Amresh Chandra Pandey. as well as Principal of the college to ensure that the service of the letter takes place well in time on the aforesaid two persons. It is true that in this letter, it has not been mentioned that an election had taken place on 5.6.1997 but the tone and tenor of this letter clearly indicates that the dispute was with regard to the election which had already taken place. The fact that a number of documents were required to be produced by the rival parties which Implied that some election had taken place. This conclusion is further fortified by the contents of the order dated 19.6.1997 passed by the D.I.O.S., a copy of which is Annexure-22. He has jotted down the points raised before him by the petitioner No. 2, Amresh Chandra Pandey on the one hand and that of Jagdish Dubey on the other. Jagdish Dubey has elicited the circumstances in which the election was held on 5.6.1997, All these submissions were made by the rival parties before the D.I.O.S. In the presence of each other. Therefore, on 19.6.1997, the question for determination before the D.I.O.S, was whether the Committee of Management elected on 5.6.1997 is to be recognised or not and under what circumstances, the elections had taken place on that date. The D.I.O.S. had come to the conclusion that since the outgoing Committee of Management has ceased to function on account of expiry of the term, it could not hold fresh elections and the only course left with the members of the general body was to convene a meeting and to nominate a person of their choice to conduct an election in the light of the various provisions contained in the Scheme of Administration. The assertion of the petitioners that the letter dated 19.6.1997 was ante-dated and that they did not have any knowledge of the elections having been held on 5.6.1997 under the supervision of Jagdish Dubey is an afterthought.

12. There is also dispute about the number of members of the general body. According to the petitioners, there were only 79 members while according to the respondent No. 4, the general body consisted of 215 members whose list was published in Dewal Dalnik Samachar on 28.10.1996 under the authority of petitioner No. 2 and Shiv Shankar Singh, the then President of the Committee of Management, Now it is too late for these two persons to assert that the list was not published under their authority or signatures. In October, 1996, no other person had any occasion to get the list of the members of the general body published. The election was, therefore, to be held on the basis of approved list of 215 members, which was published on 28.10.1996. The list on which the petitioners have relied for purpose of election cannot be said to be authentic and valid list. It would not be out of place to mention that the petitioners had Inducted one Bechu Prasad Gupta as member after the alleged process of election had commenced. According to the petitioner, Bechu Prasad Gupta was the person who was elected as President of the Committee of Management in the elections alleged to have taken place on 22.6.1997. Since Bechu Prasad Gupta could not have been made a member after the election process had commenced, his participation in the election was wholly illegal and unjustified. He could not be elected as President of the society.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that since there was a dispute about the validity of the elections of the two rival Committees of Management, the D.I.O.S. had no option in the matter but to refer the dispute to R.D.D.E./Joint Director under the provisions of Section 16A (7) of the Act who alone has the power to determine the question as to which of the elected Committee of Management is in the effective control of the affairs of the institution. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision in Committee of Management and another v. D.I.O.S, and another, 1989 ACJ 170 ; Committee of Management, Sri Girdhari Lal Higher Secondary School, Chulhawari (Tundla) and another v. D.I.O.S., Firozabad and others. (1994) 1 ESC 502; Urwa Bazar Educational Society Urwa Bazar, Corakhpur and another u. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Units, Gorakhpur and others, 1988 UPLBEC 515 ; Committee of Management, Nehru Vldyapeeth Reotipur, district Ghazipur v. D.I.O.S., Ghazipur and others. (1991) 1 UPLBEC 187 and a series of decisions of the point, which is not necessary to recount as it would unnecessarily burden this judgment. There can be no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid cases. It is well-established that where there is a dispute about the elections between two rival Committees of Management, the D.I.O.S. Is bound to refer the same for decision by the Deputy Director of Education, who is then required to record the findings as to which one of the Committees of Management is in actual and effective control of the affairs of the institution. Various observations made in the aforesaid decisions do not apply to the facts of the present case for one simple reason that on the date, i.e., 19.6.1997, on which the D.I.O.S. had recognised the respondent No. 4 as the validly constituted Committee of Management in the elections held on 5.6.1997, there was in existence no rival Committee of Management as admittedly, the rival Committee of Management which later on sought recognition is said to have been elected on 22.6.1998. A Committee of Management which is elected after the recognition of the committee which came into being much before, could not be recognised by the D.I.O.S. On 19.6.1997, there was only one elected Committee of Management, i.e.. respondent No. 4 and the Committee of Management elected on 22.6.1997 had not come into existence. At the time when the D.I.O.S. recognised the duly elected Committee of Management, there was no other rival Committee of Management and, therefore, the question of making a reference under Section 16A (7) did not arise. Any reference under Section 16A (7) if made by the D.I.O.S. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the present case would have been otiose.

14. Much capital was sought to be made by challenging order dated 19.6.1997 passed by the D.I.O.S. by asserting that in the facts of the case, he had committed a grave Illegality in recognising the respondent No. 4-Committee of Management. It was urged that Jagdish Dubey, a stranger could not hold the elections and that the procedure adopted by him to elect a new body was also Illegal and untenable. 1 am not convinced by this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. After the erstwhile Committee of Management had run out its term and has become defunct and when the outgoing president and Manager failed to convene a meeting in spite of the request, the only course left open was to convene a meeting of the general body on the authority of the one third of its members. The general body authorised and intimated Jagdish Dubey to hold the elections as the outgoing Committee of Management failed to do so. It was in this manner that Jagdish Dubey got an authority to hold the elections.

15. It is well established that the order passed by the D.I.O.S. attesting the signatures of the manager is purely an administrative decision, which he has to take as a matter of necessity. This aspect of the matter has been considered in a number of decisions of this Court. To quote a few, reference may be made to Committee of Management, S. A. V. Inter College v. D.I.O.S.. Civil Misc. Writ No. 12725 of 1975. decided on 24.11.1997 by a Division Bench of this court ; Committee of Management and another v. D.I.O.S., Meerut and another. 1978 AWC 124 : Committee of Management. Vaidtc Higher Secondary School, Faizpur Minana and another v. D.I.O.S., Meerut and another. (1993) 2 UPLBEC 934 and Court Shankar Rat and others v. Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey. D.I.O.S., Ballia and others. 1984 UPLBEC 166. In all these cases, it has been held that the D.I.O.S. Is duty bound to recognise the Committee of Management and to attest the signatures of the Manager after making an administrative enquiry and without entering into the validity or otherwise of the election of the new Committee of Management and Its office bearers. The D.I.O.S. has to collaborate with the various Committees of Management for administrative purposes in order to perform his various statutory duties as adumbrated in the U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921 and U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. The power of the D.I.O.S. to recognise the Committee of Management and to attest the signatures of the Manager, which is necessarily done for administrative purposes cannot be whittled down merely because a dispute has been raised about the validity of the election or otherwise by the rival Committees of Management. If the D.I.O.S. Is permitted to show an apathy in the matter and his Inaction in discharging the essential administrative function. It would lead to disastrous results. The D.I.O.S. was, therefore, justified in recognising the Committee of Management which was elected on 5.6.1997 and attesting the signatures of Indrasan Rai who was elected as its Manager.

16. It would not be out of place to mention that the validity of the election cannot be canvassed or determined before this Court in the writ jurisdiction. This aspect of the matter has to be decided by the civil courts. If the petitioners were really aggrieved on account of the recognition of a body which according to them has been elected not in accordance with law, there was nothing to prevent them to file a civil suit before the competent court. The fact remains that the respondent No. 4 committee has been recognised. It is functioning as such by managing the affairs of the institution. Any Interference at this stage by this Court would result in incalculable harm to the institution and its students. The supreme interest of the students and Institution cannot be Ignored merely because certain persons are fighting, in their litigative zeal to grab power. Any disturbance in the functioning of the respondent No. 4 is likely to hamper the smooth running of the institution. The expediency demands that things should be allowed to go on.

17. For the reasons stated above. I find that both the petitions are devoid of any merit and substance. Interference by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wholly unwarranted. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.