Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Intermediate ... vs The Joint Director Of Education, ... on 1 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(2)ESC968, (2005)1UPLBEC784
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate issued by Sri Harish Chandra Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
2. Intermediate College, Turapatti Mahuawa, District Kushi Nagar is an institution recognized under the provisions of Intermediate Education Act. The said institution is run and managed in accordance with approved scheme of administration. The Petitioner, Committee of Management through its alleged Manager Sri Pramod Kumar Singh has filed this writ petition against an Order passed by the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 1, dated 27th May, 2004 whereby after revoking the earlier Order dated 27th January, 2002 passed in exercise of power under Section 6 (3) of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, he has directed that the respondent-Committee of Management, with Sri Rama Shanker Singh as Manager is restored in office.
3. The petitioner claims that the last election of the Committee of Management took place on 22nd June, 1997 in which the petitioner, Promod Kumar Singh was elected as the Manager. The aforesaid elections were recognized by the District Inspector of Schools by means of the Order dated 28th October, 1997, Against the aforesaid Order of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 28th October, 1997. respondent No. 3, Rama Shanker Singh filed Writ Petition No. 38628 of 1997. This Court on 22nd November, 1997 passed an interim Order whereby the financial power of the elected Committee of Management were suspended however, for all other purposes to interference was made in the working of the petitioner, Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools accordingly passed an Order dated 3rd December, 1997 permitting the petitioner Committee of Management to function in the institution. Against the said Order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd December, 1997 the respondent No. 3, Rama Shanker Singh filed another Writ Petition No. 38628 of 1999, which was dismissed by this Court on 8th September, 1998. Against the judgment and Order of learned Single Judge passed in the said writ petition dated 8th September, 1998, Sri Rama Shanker Singh preferred an intra Court appeal which was numbered as Special Appeal No. 779 of 1998. The said special appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and Order dated 17th September, 1998 and the matter was remanded for afresh adjudication to the learned Single Judge. (After remand, the said writ petition is being decided by this Court today). During this period Sri Rama Shanker Singh, respondent No. 3 on the basis of his election dated 7th November, 1998 claims himself to have been elected as Manager of the Institution and it is further claimed that the aforesaid election were recognized by the District Inspector of Schools by attesting the signatures of respondent No. 3, Sri Rama Shanker Singh vide its Order dated 7th November, 1998. Subsequently the District Inspector of Schools himself issued a letter dated 21st November, 1998 suiting therein that no such Order dated 7th November, 1998 was issued by his office. However, the Regional Joint Director of Education again passed an Order dated 6th October, 1999 recognizing Sri Rama Shanker Singh as Manager of the institution and as a consequence thereto the District inspector of Schools attested the signatures of the respondent No. 3 as Manager of the institution on 29th November, 1999. Against the aforesaid Order the petitioner filed a petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50131 of 1999, In the said writ petition an interim Order was granted by this Court vide Order dated 1st December, 1999 (The said writ petition is also being decided by this Court today). In view of the said facts the petitioner claims to have held fresh elections on 25th June, 2000 in which Pramod Kumar Singh, present petitioner is said to have been elected as Manager afresh.
4. It is admitted between the parties that by means of the Order dated 15th May, 2000 the Regional Joint Director of Education had approved the amendment proposed in the scheme of administration whereby the term of the Committee of Management was extended from 3 years to 5 (five) years. Both the parties claim that the aforesaid amendment in the scheme of administration has been accepted by the Regional Joint Director of Education on the basis of the resolution passed by both the rival Committee of Management. The petitioner Committee of Management vide letter dated 15th October, 2000 made a complaint with regard to the embezzlement of certain funds of the G.P.F. Accounts of the teacher and other employees of the institution by Sri Rama Shanker Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint made by the petitioner the Regional Joint Director of Education passed an Order dated 7th January, 2002 appointing a Prabandh Sanchalak in the institution, a copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure No. 17 to the writ petition. Against the aforesaid Order dated 7th January, 2002 the petitioner approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5351 of 2002, in which no interim Order has been granted. Against the Order of Joint Director of Education dated 7th January, 2002 Sri Rama Shanker Singh, respondent No. 3 has also filed Civil Misc, Writ Petition No. 6159 of 2002. In the said writ petition no interim Order was granted. (Both the aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by this Court today itself).
5. It is not in dispute that under the Order of the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 7th January, 2002, the Prabandh Sanehalak started functioning in the institution. However, on 27th May, 2004 the Regional Joint Director of Education has passed the impugned Order stating that the audit reports as well as the police reports in respect of the complaint made against the respondent No. 3 have not found any material evidence to link the respondent No. 3 with the alleged embezzlement of certain funds of the G.P.F. Accounts of the teachers and other employees of the institution. It has further been directed that the Committee of Management with Rama Shanker Singh, respondent No. 3 as Manager be recognized.
6. The respondents further claims that fresh election of the Committee of Management having been held on 12th October, 2003 and the said elections have also been accepted/recognized by the District Inspector of Schools by attesting the signature of Sri Rama Shanker Singh as Manager on 5th June, 2004, a copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure No. C.A.-17 to the counter affidavit.
7. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that there was no occasion for recognizing the Committee of Management with Sri Rama Shanker Singh, respondent No. 4 as Manager of the institution vide Order dated 27th May, 2004 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education on the date the Prabandh Sanehalak was appointed in the institution the petitioner-Committee of Management was in effective control of the institution and therefore, if the Order of appointment of the Prabandh Sanehalak was to be withdrawn, the petitioner-Committee of Management alone could have been restored back in the office.
8. It is further submitted that the Order dated 27th May, 2004 was passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the said Order is nonest (Reference- Paragraph Nos. 26 and 27 of the writ petition). The respondent No. 3 had no authority of law to hold the elections dated 12th October, 2003 inasmuch as on the relevant date admittedly the Prabandh Sanehalak was working in the institution. It is further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signatures of the respondent No. 3, Sri Rama Shanker Singh as Manager of the institution vide Order dated 5th June, 2004, as a consequence to the Order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 27th May, 2004 (which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition), and therefore, it cannot be said that the elections set up by the respondent No. 3 dated 12th October, 2003 have been recognized by the Regional Joint Director of Education.
9. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the petitioner is not even a primary member of the general body and therefore, has no authority of law to challenge the Order dated 27th May, 2004. Since the petitioner has no role to play in the management of the institution, it was not necessary to afford any opportunity of hearing to him while passing the Order dated 27th May, 2004. On behalf of the respondents it is stated that the Order dated 27th May, 2004 has been passed after taking into consideration audit reports as well as the police reports wherein the allegation against the respondent No. 3 have not been found true. Therefore, no interference is called for.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
11. It is apparent from the record that the last elections set up by the petitioner, which were recognized by the Joint Director of Education had taken place in the year 1997. The term of the Committee of Management at the relevant time was three years. During the continuance of the said management, the term of the Committee of Management was extended/amended with the approval of the Joint Director of Education as per his letter dated 15th May, 2000 and therefore, the term of the Committee of Management stood extended from three (3) years to five (5) years. Therefore, fresh elections, if any, subsequent to the amendment could have been held in the year 2002. Petitioner claims that the elections have been held on 25th June, 2000, which are said to have been recognized by the District Inspector of Schools on the same date. In support thereof the petitioner has placed reliance upon the endorsement made by the District Inspector of Schools on the election proceedings, which have been enclosed as Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition.
12. In the opinion of the Court mere endorsement on the election proceedings, set up by the petitioner dated 25th June, 2000 by the District Inspector of Schools cannot be said to be an Order upholding the legality of the election. It was necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to have recorded a finding as to whether the petitioner-Committee of Management was competent to hold any election or not and further that the elections have been held strictly in accordance with the approved scheme of administration from amongst members of the general body or not. In absence of any such finding having been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools were signatures on the elections proceedings cannot be read so as to suggests that the elections have been approved. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the signatures appended by the District Inspector of School to the election proceedings dated 25th June, 2000 does not amount to recognition of the election of the District Inspector of Schools.
13. Similarly the elections set up by the respondents dated 12th October, 2003 have not been recognized by the Regional Level Committee, constituted under the , Government Order dated 19th December, 2001. It is worth while to notice that the Order passed by the District Inspector of Schools attesting the signatures of the respondent No. 3 dated 5th June, 2004 is only a consequential action taken in pursuance of the Order of the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 27th May, 2004, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The Order of the Joint Director of Education dated 27th May, 2004 does not refer to any election of the respondent No. 3 dated 12th October, 2003.
14. Moreover the alleged elections set up by Sri Rama Shanker Singh, respondent No. 3 dated 12th October, 2003 could not have been held by the Committee of Management, in view of the fact that under the Order of the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 7th January, 2002 a Prabandh Sanchalak has been appointed in the institution under Section 6 (3) of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971) and all the powers of the Committee of Management as such were vested in the Prabandh Sanchalak, the respondent No. 3 on the relevant date Rama Shanker Singh was not in effective control over the affairs of the institution and as such could not have held any fresh elections as contended on his behalf.
15. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the attestation of signatures of the respondent No. 5 by the District Inspector of Schools dated 5th June, 2004 amounts to recognize/approval of the election of the respondent No, 3 dated 12th October, 2003.
16. In any view of the matter under the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000 the power to recognize the elections of a recognized High School or Intermediate College has been conferred upon the Regional Level Committee comprising of three persons of which the Regional Joint Director of Education is the Chairman. The Regional Level Committee has not approved the elections of the respondent No. 3 alleged to have taken place on 12th October, 2003 till date.
17. Thus, neither the elections of the petitioner dated 25th June, 2004 have been recognized by the legal authority concerned under any legal Order, namely, District Inspector of Schools nor there is any Order of the Regional Level Committee (which has been conferred the power to recognize the election held subsequent to 19th December, 2000) recognizing the elections of the respondent No. 3 dated 12th October, 2003. In such circumstances, such elections, set up by the rivals have not been recognized by the competent authority. The term of both the earlier elections, which have been set up by the parties, has admittedly expired and in such circumstances, neither of the parties can claim a right to manage the institution and to be put ineffective control over the affairs of the institution while revoking the appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak.
18. The papers pertaining to the elections held by the petitioner dated 25th June, 2000 transmitted by the District Inspector of Schools along with his recommendation to the Regional Joint Director of Education vide letter dated 12th November, 2001 have yet not been proceeded by the Regional Level Committee. In the opinion of the Court a direction to the Regional Joint Director of Education to decide the legality or otherwise of the elections set up by the petitioner dated 25th June, 2000 at such a belated stage would not be fair and just in the interest of the institution inasmuch as if the elections set up by the petitioner dated 25th June, 2000 are accepted to be correct, the term whereof would admittedly expire in the month of May, 2005 and admittedly the period of only four months will remain.
19. Since the Order dated 27th May, 2004 has been passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education without taking into consideration that the term of the earlier Committee of Management has expired and the fresh elections set up by the respondent No. 3, Sri Rama Shanker Singh had not been recognized by the Regional Level Committee and further in view of the fact that the alleged elections are said to have been held during the period when the Prabandh Sanchalak was admittedly working in the institution and there was no occasion for the Committee of Management with Sri Rama Shanker Singh, respondent No. 3 to hold any fresh elections cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed.
20. This Court is of the opinion that the parties have been litigating on the basis of rival elections, by filing a large number of writ petitions before this Court, as noticed hereinabove, challenging the recognition of the rival elections from time to time. The litigation between the parties must reach to an end, as uncalled litigation between the rival parties, claiming themselves to be the lawful management, untimately harms the institution. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as brought on record, it would be appropriate that the fresh election of the Committee of Management may be held by a Prabandh Sanchalak to be appointed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is produced before the Regional Joint Director of Education,
21. It is further provided that the Prabandh Sanchalak shall publish a tentative list of members entitled to participate in the elections as aforesaid and shall invite objections in respect thereto. He shall decide the objections so filed, by means of a reasoned speaking Order and shall finalise the list of members entitled to participate in the elections in accordance with the scheme of administration and shall thereafter hold election from the said voters list. After the elections are held all the relevant records shall be transmitted through the office of the District Inspector of Schools to the Regional Joint Director of Education for being placed before the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19th December, 2003 of which Regional Joint Director of Education is the Chairman. The Regional Level Committee shall take a decision in accordance with law thereafter. All the aforesaid exercise be completed within two months from the date of appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak.. ,,
22. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as stated hereinabove.