Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Inter College ... vs Joint Director Of Education, 5Th Region ... on 16 May, 2006
Author: Shishir Kumar
Bench: Shishir Kumar
JUDGMENT Shishir Kumar, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 3.12.2005 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Further prayer is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recognize the petitioners as duly elected Committee of Management of the inter College, Nevarihiya, Jaunpur.
2. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that there is an Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nevarihiya, district- Jaunpur which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said society was established with an object for promotion of education. The society has established an Intermediate College known as Intermediate College, Nevarihiya, district Jaunpur. The said institution receives grant in aid from the State Government and is governed under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to the Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable to the said institution. The institution has its duly approved scheme of administration. The affairs of the institution are being managed by the Committee of Management. The last undisputed election was held on 19.12.1982 wherein Sri Udai Raj Singh and Vijai Narain Tiwari, petitioner No. 2 were elected as President and Manager respectively along with other office bearers of the Committee of Management. The term of the Committee of Management is three years. Due to certain unavoidable circumstances fresh election could not be held within time as such Director of Education on 31.7.1987 refused to accept two rival claims. The order passed by the Director of Education was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 15343 of 1987. The same was allowed by this Court on 13.9.1991. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Special Appeal was filed which was partly allowed being Special Appeal No. 83 of 1991, During this period no Committee of Management functioned and only Prabandh Sanchalak was managing the affairs of the institution. When the Prabandh Sanchalak was being continued, one Sri Ram Narain Pandey on the basis of 47 newly elected members submitted a fabricated election. Similarly respondent No. 4 also submitted the papers relating to the alleged election on the basis of 24 members. Writ Petition No. 39154 of 1994 was filed and this Court on 23.2.1995 had directed to decide the dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the Act. It was decided by the competent authority by order-dated 26.6.95 that both the elections are illegal and contrary to the scheme of administration. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by means of Writ Petition No. 18162 of 1995. The writ petition was dismissed on 10.7.1995. An appeal was filed but no interim order was granted and during the pendency of the special appeal, the Prabandh Sanchalak was continued. However, again respondent No. 4 submitted papers relating to fake election. The District Inspector of Schools in collusion has attested the signatures of respondent No. 4. However, as the special appeal was pending, an application was filed and the attestation of the signature of respondent No. 4 was stayed. As such, he could not come in the effective control over the affairs of the institution and the Prabandha Sanchalak continued. During the continuance of Prabandh Sanchalak, the Prabandh Sanchalak included 17 members illegally including respondent No. 4. The said fact has been admitted by respondent No. 4 in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition No. 25009 of 2004. Para 13 of the counter affidavit is being reproduced below:
13. That the Prabandh Sanchalak again following the procedure of Scheme of Administration approved 17 life members, who were enrolled by the then Prabandh Sanchalak in the year 1995 and with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools published an election programme in the newspaper, wherein names of approved members were also published. A true copy along with Photostat copy of the newspaper published on 5.1.1999 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure CA-3 to this counter affidavit. Even at this time neither the petitioner No. 2 nor any one filed any objection against the said list of members nor put any claim saying that they are life members. The then Prabandh Sanchalak held the election on 24.1.1999, which was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, on 17.2.1999 and Prabandh Sanchalak was withdrawn by the order of the Joint Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi, and the deponent land his committee elected on 24.1.1999 continued to manage the affairs of the institution.
The 17 members enrolled by the Prabandh Sanchalak were disapproved by the Director of Education by order dated 26.6.1995.
3. Respondent No. 4 again submitted fabricated papers in regard to the election held on 23/24,1.1999 before the District Inspector of Schools wherein Sri Achyutanand Tiwari was shown as elected President and respondent No. 4 as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution. The said election was recognized by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 17.2.1999. It is apparent from the signatures that there were forged signatures and taking advantage of the death of Sri Sangam Lal Shukla, the said document was manufactured. The aforesaid development about the alleged election was not in the knowledge of any member of the General Body. When it came to the knowledge, Writ Petition No. 25009 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners and representation to that effect was also made to the authorities concerned. In the mean time the members of the General Body convened a meeting to hold a fresh election, which was held in accordance with the provisions of scheme of administration on 15.12.2003 wherein Sri Lal Chandra Upadyay and Vijai Narin Tiwari petitioner No. 2 were elected as President and Manager respectively. The papers were submitted before the District Inspector of Schools and the same were forwarded to the Regional Committee. Since the Regional Committee was not taking any decision, as such, the Committee of Management filed Writ Petition No. 25009 of 2004 and the Regional Level Committee was directed to decide the dispute. The Regional Level Committee by order-dated 21,3.2005 rejected the claim of both the Committees i.e. the petitioners and respondent No. 4. Two different writ petitions were filed challenging the order passed by the Regional Level Committee being Writ Petition No. 31808 of 2005 by the petitioners and Writ Petition No 34721 of 2005 by respondent No. 4. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment dated 2.5.2005 and the matter was remanded back to the Regional Level Committee to decide the question. The Hon'ble Court has formulated the following points to be decided by the Regional Committee:
(a) Who was competent to hold fresh elections in accordance with the scheme of administration?
(b) Whether the persons, who have participated in the rival elections were validly enrolled in accordance with the scheme of administration or not specifically in the light of judgments which may be relied upon the parties ?
(c) Whether the elections have been held strictly in accordance with the scheme of administration or not ?
4. When the matter was remanded back to the Regional Committee, the petitioners filed their objections dated 21.6.2005. The Joint Director of Education who was to retire on 31.12.2005 just before his retirement without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners have recognized the elections of respondent No. 4 by means of an order dated 3.12.2005. The said order was dispatched from the office of the Joint Director of Education on 28.12.2005, which was received by the petitioners on 30.12.2005. The petitioners made a complaint to this effect to the Additional Director of Education on 15.12.2005 that the Joint Director of Education is in collusion with respondent No. 4 and one of the office bearers of the petitioners' Committee of Management had himself seen that a member of respondent No. 4's Committee of Management was meeting at his residence. It was also mentioned that the hearing was concluded on 28.9.2005 and for extraneous considerations and reasons, the Joint Director of Education, respondent No. 1 was not passing any order and just before his retirement he has passed the impugned order and dispatched it just two days before his retirement.
5. It has further been submitted that the meeting of the Regional Committee again was not convened despite the orders of this Hon'ble Court and only the hearing was conducted by the Joint Director of Education, respondent No. 1 alone. The other members of the Regional Committee were not present during the meeting. The order has been passed by respondent No. 1 all alone and not by the Regional Committee. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Court while remanding the case to the Regional Committee had formulated three points. Respondent No. 1 without averting to those points has recorded only perverse finding which are not based on any evidence. The material evidence which were filed by the petitioners has totally been ignored. Issue No. 1 decided by respondent No. 1 is totally illegal as he failed to consider that the alleged elections which were held on 23/24.1.1999 were based on bogus membership and fabricated documents. The members who participated in the said elections were not members of the General Body. They were outsiders and were enrolled by the Prabandh Sanchalak. Thus they had no right to hold election dated 23/24.1.1999. The petitioners in their objection has clearly established that the election dated 23/24.1.1999 was bogus election as the papers were manufactured inasmuch as one Sangain Lal Shukla who was District Inspector of Schools whose signatures were forged on attestation order as well as on the recognition order dated 17.2.1999 and this fact was clearly established. The finding recorded by the respondent No. 1 in regard to the order-dated 31.7.1987 is totally illegal as he has misinterpreted the order dated 31.7.1987. In the said order it has never been held that the entire General Body has become redundant. The reference was only with regard to the office bearers of the Committee of Management and not the entire General body. The observation to this effect that in the amended Rule of 1974, a person can be enrolled as a life member after depositing Rs. 500/- is totally incorrect. There is no finding that all existing members of the General Body had ceased to become members. The Joint Director of Education himself has recorded a finding that the then Prabandh Sanchalak who had taken charge in July 1995, had issued an advertisement in July 1995 inviting the applications for enrolment of the members and had actually enrolled 20 members who had deposited Rs. 500/-. These newly enrolled members had held the election in the year 1999. The fresh election was held on 25.5.2003 in which Sri D.S.M. Tripathi and respondent No. 4 were elected as a President and Manager respectively and the same election was alleged to be unanimous and the entire election proceedings have been shown to be completed on the same day. Respondent No. 1 has also failed to consider that the persons enrolled by the authorized controller were not entitled to hold the election of 1999, As such they had no right to hold subsequent election as well.
6. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 has clearly ignored the evidence on record and has accepted non-existing fact and fabricated documents of respondent no 4. A clear finding has been recorded by respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 4 was enrolled by the authorized controller in the year 1995 and in view of the settled principle of law, the authorized controller does not have the power to enroll the members. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court in K. Shantharaj v. M.L. Nasaraia , Jt. Resistrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala v. T.A. Kuttappan . In view of the aforesaid submissions the petitioners submit that in these cases this Court has clearly held that enrolment of any new member is beyond the power of Administrator. The Supreme Court has observed as follows:
5. It would be clear from the language of these provisions that the Administrator or special officer, subject to control of any of the functions of the society, and in the interest of the society take such action as is necessary for proper functioning of the society as per law. He should conduct elections as is enjoined thereunder. In other words, he is to conduct election with the members as on the rules and by necessary implications, he is not vested with power to enroll new members of the Society.
7. The Single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2175 has also held that valid Electoral College is the essence of the valid election. The Prabandh Sanchalak has no authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the process of enrolment of members and has held "that the entire exercise undertaken for enrolment for members is void and nullity" and further referred to the various judgments mentioned above that the Prabandha Sanchalak had got no jurisdiction and can never be treated as a substitute of Committee of Management or General Body of the Society of the institution and possess no power to induct the members.
8. It is clear from the record that the election of 1999 was held by the Electoral College in which all members were enrolled by the authorized controller. Respondent No. 1 has not accepted even Lal Chandra Upadhyay who is a founder member as a valid member and has clearly misinterpreted the order-dated 31.7.1987. A finding to this effect under the orders of respondent No. 1 that the members enrolled by the Prabandh Sanchalak are also valid is contrary to the well-settled law that the authorized controller cannot enroll the members. Respondent No. 1 has illegally held that the petitioners are unauthorized persons. Petitioner No. 2 was the member in 1975 and previously he was elected as Manager in the election held in 1979 and in the next election of 1982. Further submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that from the record it is clear mat the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 1 alone and not by the Regional Committee. As this Court has clearly held and directed respondent No. 1 to decide the dispute by the Regional Committee but as the Regional Committee has not decided the matter, the same is liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on this question by the petitioners on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 47230 of 2005 decided on 28.7.2005 to the effect that this Court after perusal of the record has come to the conclusion that hearing by one and order by another is legally not sustainable and relying upon the Apex Court judgment Laxmi Chandra Baij Nath v. Commission Income Tax, West Bengal has remanded the matter to the Regional Level Committee to decide the dispute between the parties afresh strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties. The Full Bench in Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College v. Deputy Director of Education reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 85 has held that the Regional Committee can also decide the validity of election prima facie as to which of the rival claimants is the validly elected party in accordance with law. Rank outsider cannot be recorded under Section 16-A(7) to have control over the institution. In the scheme of administration there is a specific procedure to enroll the members of the General Body in the said society, which will prevail over any order. The election of respondent No. 4 of 1999 and 2003 are forged, fictitious and illegal. In such a situation it has been submitted that the election of respondent as the same has been held by the members enrolled by the Prabandha Sanchalak and life members of the General Body were not informed and the election of 1999 and 2003 by respondent No. 4 were not held at the instance of the Director of Education or by this Hon'ble Court, as the Prabandah Sanchalak was continued in the said institution, the alleged election of respondent No. 4 is in the teeth of the order dated 16.8.1995 and 16.1.1996 passed by Division Bench of this Court and in Special Appeal No. 506 of 1995, which was dismissed on 6.12.2000 as withdrawn in collusion with one R.N. Pandey.
9. It is well established that if a Committee comes in power by a forged or through rank outsiders, then merely because they have completed their term would not validate the said election because valid Electoral College is the essence of the valid election. Thus own origin of Managing Committee of respondent No. 4 elected on 24.1.1999 was illegal and void and as such subsequent election of 2003 is also illegal and void in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2175. The petitioner has also referred the order dated 18.12.1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the same has been filed as Annexure 7-B to the writ petition and tried to show that the respondents themselves have admitted mat there are 130 valid members and this finding has been given on the basis of the relevant record and has also recorded a finding mat Sri Vijai Narain Tiwari is validly elected as a Manager and a Committee consisting of only 130 members are declared as valid.
10. On the other hand counsel for the respondents has only tried to submit before this Court that the Regional Level Committee has been constituted under the general orders dated 19.12.2000 as the impugned order the finding of fact has been recorded that the election of the Committee of Management dated 25.5.2003 was held from the members who were validly enrolled by the Prabandha Sanchalak in view of the judgment dated 31.7.1987 which was affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 83 of 1991 as the same was affirmed in SLP No. 556 of 1993. A finding to this effect has also been recorded by the respondent that the petitioners have failed to establish about the genuineness of the list of their membership by not producing any material in that respect. The petitioners have raised many disputed questions in respect of the genuineness of the membership list enrolled by the Prabandha Sanchalak in the year 1995 as well as the genuineness of the list alleged to be submitted by the petitioners for which they did not file any material to establish that the members of his list are the life members made in accordance with the scheme of administration of the college and has further submitted that in view of the various judgments, this is a disputed question of fact which requires evidence oral as well as documentary, therefore only the civil suit is the proper remedy and not this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in Munna Lal Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2005 (4) ESC Page 2789 and placed reliance upon paras 18 to 21 which are reproduced below:
18. On the factual issue of the substance of the decision given by the Joint Director of Education on 4.9.2004 Mr. Saxena submitted that the decision is liable to be set aside even by the writ Court. The main thrust of the argument was that from 1993 his client M.K.Singh had been elected on the basis of votes cast by the then 246 members of whom 202 were inducted as life members. According to him, it was only in 2004 that M.P.Singh did not choose to abide by the total voter strength, but that he submitted before the Joint Director of Education that there are on 44 eligible voters and that 202 life members are not eligible. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that 202 members were not life members that they had paid only Rs. 100 or so for their membership which would make them members only for three years ; that in 1992 the life membership fee had been raised to Rs. 2,000 that life membership fee is now Rs. 5,000; that even if the members might have been temporary members in 1993, they have not right to vote now; that under the signatures even of Mr.Saxena's client in a meeting held in June, 2003, the list of 44 members has been approved. It was further submitted that the respondents for the purpose of getting him elected sought to raise an unacceptable case of adjourning the election meeting fixed for 18th January, 2005 for which adjournment there was no cause and in fact which adjournment did not take place.
19. The case of the respondents was that at the time 202 members were inducted the life membership fee had not gone up to Rs. 2,000 but was still Rs. 101.
20. We have recounted these facts only for demonstrating that the writ Court is not the proper Court for adjudicating upon this factual dispute. Because disputes like this do arise in regard to management Committee disputes, and have always arisen and will arise in future also, Sub-section (7) provides that the decision of the Joint Director of education of actual control will hold the field only until a competent Court of law decides the matter. If according to the respondents' advice they have a good set of facts, there is no reason why they should not go to a suit Court and obtain declaration about the validity and eligibility of the crucial set of 202 members; until they do so, we do not see how the decision of the Joint Director of Education is to be set aside in the writ Court since we have found the points about the decision-making process and the vesting of jurisdiction to be in favour of the appellants.
21. As such the appeal is allowed. The decision of the Joint Director of Education dated 4.9.2004 as approved by the Regional Level Committee is upheld and it will hold and be of full effect, until, if ever, any competent Court of law decides otherwise or orders otherwise. All consequential orders passed by all authorities on the basis of the order dated 4.9.2004, will also be treated as valid until the decision of a Court of law, as mentioned above, if at all comes into existence.
and has submitted that the present case is also on similar footing. In Munna Lal's case hearing was done by the Joint Director of Education. The judgment was also prepared by him but before issuing the same, signatures from remaining two members of the Regional Level Committee were obtained whereas in the present case every time hearing was done by all the members of the Regional Level Committee, of which Joint Director of Education was the Chairman. The judgment was prepared and it was approved by all the members before it was issued to the parties. Since under Section 16A(7) the competent authority is the Joint Director of Education and he being the Chairman of Regional Level Committee, the judgment is rightly issued with the signatures of Joint Director of Education and not by other members of the Regional Level Committee though they have signed on the original order and in view of the aforesaid fact submitted that in case any person is aggrieved with the result of election or recognition order, he has remedy by way of filing a suit. Reliance has been placed upon various judgments of this Court and Apex Court which are noted below:
(a) 1993 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. page 1333 D.B.
(b) Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Haraiya, Azamgarh and Ors. v. Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh and Ors. 1999(1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 524 head Note (G) Para 16.
(c) Committee of Management, L.P.Chaturvedi Arya Kanya Inter College, Mathura and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) II Region, Agra and Ors. 1999 (1) E.S.C. 584, Head Note (8)
(d) Committee of management, Sri Bapu Inter College v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (1) E.S.C. 24.
(e) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1339 of 1995. Sri Gopal Singh and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Education, XII Region, Moradabad and Ors. decided on 16.1.1995.
(f) Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Anr. v. Ram Bahadur Thakur Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. head Note (G)
(g) State of Goa and Ors. v. Laukoplast (India) Ltd. Head Note (G)
(h) State of M.P. and Ors. v. M.V. Vyavasaya & Co. Head Note 'C'
(i) President, Poornathrayisha Seva Sangham, Tipunithura 2005 (5) P.W.C. 3985 (SC)
11. I have heard Sri P.S. Baghel learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.D. Singh (Shekhar) as counsel for the respondent No. 4 and have perused the record. From the record it is clear that the undisputed election was held in the year 1982 and there were various litigations between the parties from time to time. This Court on the basis of the writ petition filed by both the parties has decided two writ petitions by the common judgment on 2.5.2005 and has passed the follows orders:
It is pointed out that the Regional Level Committee shall record specific findings in respect of following issues:
(a) Who was competent to hold fresh elections in accordance with the scheme of administration?
(b) Whether the persons, who have participated in the rival elections were validly enrolled in accordance with the scheme of administration or not specifically in the light of judgments which may be relied upon the parties?
(c) Whether the elections have been held strictly in accordance with the scheme of administration or not?
Since the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Varanasi dated 21st March, 2005 has been quashed by this Court, it is provided that the status quo as was prevailing with regard to the management of the institution on 22nd July, 2004 shall continue till decision afresh.
In view of the aforesaid both the writ petition are allowed.
The Court while remanding the matter has formulated certain points to be considered by the Regional Level Committee. First and foremost point was to be considered by the Regional Committee that who was competent to hold fresh election in accordance with the scheme of administration. Another question to be decided by the Regional Committee was that the persons who participated in the rival election whether they were validly enrolled in accordance with the scheme of administration or not. Another question to be considered was as to whether the election has been held strictly in accordance with the scheme of Administration.
12. From the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 it clearly appears that respondent No. 1 has not considered the directions issued by this Court in true spirits. A finding has been recorded that the election of respondent No. 4 has been held on the basis of the members enrolled by the Prabandha Sanchalak. If that was so whether in view of the settled principle, the members inducted by the Prabandha Sanchalka can be held to be valid members and can participate in the election. The finding to this effect recorded by the respondent No. 1 mat Vijai Narain Tiwari is not able to prove that he is a life member though from the order date 18.12.1987 passed by Parganadhikari it is clear that 130 valid members were accepted and Vijai Narain Tiwari was accepted as a Manager. Respondent No. 1 has not recorded a finding to this effect that the election which was alleged to be held in the year 1999 by respondent No. 4 whether the same was held to be in accordance with the scheme of Administration by valid members. It was incumbent on the part of respondent No. 1 to take into consideration the fuel that in spite of the fact that if respondent No. 4 was permitted to hold the office illegally on invalid election by invalid members whether on that basis he can be given any benefit and can hold the election in 2003. Respondent No. 1 has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter in spite of the fact that all the relevant records were produced before him.
13. It is also clear from the record that all the relevant papers were filed by the petitioners including the objection on 21.6.2005 and subsequently no date was fixed and the Joint Director of Education who was going to retire on 31.12.2005 has passed an order alleged to be on 3.12.2005. The Court has also directed the State to produce the original record. From the record it is clear that though in the judgment the date is mentioned as 3.12.2005 but the same was dispatched from the office of the Joint Director of Education only 3 days before from the dale of his retirement i.e. on 28.12.2005. The same was received by the petitioner on 30.12.2005. No reason has been recorded that under what circumstances in spite of the fact that the judgment was pronounced on 3.12.2005 recognizing the election of respondent No. 4 then how the copy was dispatched from the office of respondent No. 1 on 28.12.2005. Even there is nothing on record to show that the intimation to that effect has been given to the petitioners regarding the order dated 3.12.2005.
14. One of the things which is very glaring and surprising is that the order has been signed by only respondent No. 1 not by the two other members of the Regional Committee. The Court has perused the original record. From the record it is also clear that the name and designation of Joint Director of Education has been printed and the date is mentioned as 3.12.2005 but the name of two other members of the Regional Committee has not been mentioned. Only there is a signature without any date. This clearly gives impression to the Court that it is not a judgment by the Committee. It is the judgment only by respondent No. 1 that is Joint Director of Education and it is also not disputed that the Joint Director of Education was going to retire on 31.12.2005. The submission of the petitioners to this effect regarding mat no hearing has been taken by the Regional Committee appears to be prima facie correct as this Court on previous occasions has gone through the various orders passed by the Regional Committee. In the last the name of all the members of the Regional Committee are always printed and there is always a signature but in the present case the name of only respondent No. 1. i.e. Joint Director of Education has been printed and only initial of other two members of the Regional Committee is there. The Court also felt doubts to the effect that copy which was sent to the petitioners or supplied to the petitioners of the judgment dated 3.12.2005 is signed by only respondent No. 1; i.e. Joint Director of Education. It has not been signed by the other two members. This clearly goes to show that respondent No. 1 has heard the matter and passed the order and after passing the order has obtained the signatures of the other two members of the Committee. This possibility cannot be ruled out that the signature of these members except the respondent No. 1 was obtained after filing the present writ petition as on the initial date when the writ petition was filed; this Court has directed the Standing Counsel to produce the relevant original record. It appears that when respondent No. 1 came to know regarding the allegation made in the writ petition that it is the judgment of only one member, i.e. Joint Director of Education and it is not the judgment of Regional Level Committee and on the basis of the aforesaid submission and argument and request of the petitioner, the Court had directed to produce the original record. When the respondent No. 1 came to know regarding the aforesaid fact, he immediately only to justify his action has obtained the signatures of other two members of the Committee.
15. The contention raised by the respondent to this effect is not acceptable that this is the practice of the Regional Committee mat the judgment is signed by one of the members and various copies for the purpose of issuance to the parties are prepared and sent and subsequently the signatures are made by two other members of the Committee on the original judgment. This Court is not able to accept this contention of the respondents because it will always create a doubt in the mind of the relevant parties that the judgment is by one not by the Committee. Admittedly the Committee has been conferred a power by the Government Order to decide the matter relating to the dispute of election. It is not the intention of the Government Order to decide the dispute by one of the members of the Regional Committee. The respondents are not able to satisfy the Court on the aforesaid issue and also not able to justify that why in spite of the fact that the judgment is of date 3.12.2005 then why it was dispatched on 28.12.2005.
16. The Court has also perused the original envelope under which the copy was sent to the petitioners. The Single Judge of this Court has also taken a view that hearing by one and order by another is legally not sustainable. If the Regional Level Committee was directed to decide the dispute between the parties, then the Joint Director of Education, Respondent No. 1 alone have got no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties alone.
17. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of opinion that the judgment and order passed by respondent No. dated 3.12.2005, Annexure-5-A to the writ petition is liable to be quashed and the matter needs reconsideration by the Regional Level Committee as a fresh.
18. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Regional Level Committee to decide a fresh in the light of the observations made above taking into consideration the various judgments and pleadings of the parties on the basis of the relevant record. It is also made clear that the Regional Level Committee will afford full opportunity to the petitioners as well as the respondents and will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law preferably within a period of two moths from the date of production of certified copy of this Court. No order as to costs.