Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Rashtriya ... vs Joint Director Of Education ... on 19 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)3UPLBEC2175
Author: V.K. Shukla
Bench: V.K. Shukla
JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla, J.
1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner who claims themselves to be validly elected Committee of Management of the Institution alongwith two other, have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 28.6.2002 (Annexure-20 to the writ petition) passed by the Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik), Vth Region, Varanasi accepting the election of the respondent No. 3 Committee of Management of the Institution.
2. In District of Chandauli there is a Society known as Rashtriya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Rampur Syed Raza, which was duly registered on 12.8.1965 as per the provision contained under Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 claim themselves to be the founder life members of the Society. The aforementioned Society had established a Junior High School known as Rashtriya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Rampur Syed Raza, District Chandauli and the aforementioned institution upto Junior High School, is being receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, and was within the scope and purview of the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other Employee) Act, 1978. The Managing Committee constituted as per bye-laws of the Society continued to run and manage the affairs of the institution and dispute was sought to be raised as far as back in the year 1992. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits referred the aforementioned dispute to Prescribed Authority for . decision in terms of Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The referred dispute was not adjudicated and fresh elections were again held and again fresh dispute was referred on 15.10.1985 before the Prescribed Authority by the . Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits, but even this time the aforementioned dispute was not adjudicated and the Managing Committee continued to perform and discharge his duties to manage the affairs of the Society in the Institution. On account of pendency of the dispute, order of single operation was passed and the aforementioned order continue till 27.5.1997 and thereafter, the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi appointed Prabandh Sanchalak in the Institution with farther direction to hold the election within a period of one year from taking over the charge. The aforementioned Prabandh Sanchalak proceeded with enrollment of the members and thereafter, hold the election dated 31.8.1998 and aforementioned election was objected to by the petitioners by moving details representation dated 15.12.1998. The Scheme of Administration on institution being upgraded has been approved on 25.1.2000 and necessary communication in this regard has been sent by the Joint Director of Education on 4.2.2000. The election dated 31.8.1998 were questioned before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits and further District Basic Education Officer was also informed accordingly, in regard to illegal aforementioned election and thereafter District Basic Education Officer passed order of single operation.
3. However, the aforementioned order of single operation was recalled against which Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20491 of 2001 was filed before this Court and this Court passed interim order in the same and consequently the respondent No. 3 did not operate the account of the institution. Thereafter, fresh elections have been held on 31.8.2001, wherein contesting respondent No. 3 again alleges himself to have been re-elected and the petitioners also allege fresh election thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of respondent No. 3 and referred the matter to Joint Director of Education for decision. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools attesting signature of respondent No. 3 was questioned by preferring Writ Petition No. 42955 of 2001 and on presentation of the aforementioned writ petition, this Court on 19.12.2001 directed the Joint Director of Education to decide the dispute after hearing all necessary parties. Pursuant to aforementioned judgment, the Joint Director of Education proceed ahead to decide the dispute and has passed order dated 28.6.2002, which is subject-matter challenged in the writ petition.
4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of contesting respondents and submission has been made to the effect that as there was no General Body of the Society, the Prabandh Sanchalak had authority to enroll the members and once petitioners had participated in the aforementioned election, then order, which has been passed needs no interference. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed denying the allegation mentioned in the counter-affidavit. With the consent of the parties, matter has been taken up and at the admission stage; it is heard and finally disposed of.
5. The first question which has been raised by Sri D.S.M. Tripathi, appearing on behalf of petitioners is that the entire election proceeding dated 31st August, 1998 and subsequent election proceeding dated 31st August, 2001 is nullity, inasmuch, as in the aforementioned elections, persons, who have been enrolled by the Prabandh Sanchalak, had participated in the election. As far as Prabandh Sanchalak is concerned, he has no authority to enroll the members and in this view of the fact, any election held on the basis of electoral College, which is inclusive of the members enrolled by the Prabandh Sanchalak is nullity and no credibility could be attached to the same.
6. This question as to whether Prabandh Sanchalak has any right to enroll any member or not, had already been answered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ranvir Singh v. D.I.O.S., Jalaun at Oral, reported in 2000 (38) ALR 431, wherein it has been held that Authorised Controller can never be treated as a substitute to a Committee of Management or a General Body of a Society or an Institution and possess no power to induct new members. In the case of Rajendra Pal v. District Inspector of Schools, reported in (1991) 1 UPLBEC 588, it has been held that an inspiration has to be drawn from various decisions that the Authorised Controller is appointed to meet certain exigencies and infact it is beyond his power to enroll new member and it is merely in the nature of stop gap arrangement and membership of the' persons, who have been enrolled by Authorised Controller have to be ignored. They cannot take part to constitute new Committee of Management. Relevant Paragraphs No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the aforementioned judgment are quoted below:-
"7. The Committee of Management is constituted to run an institution. It has been made obligatory under the provision of Section 16- A of the Intermediate Education Act, which was inserted by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1958. It provides for a Scheme of Administration for every institution, whether recognised before or after the commencement of the said Act. The Scheme of Administration has to, inter alia, provide for Constitution of Committee of Management vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. There are regularizations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, contained in Part-2A, Chapter I, dealing with the Scheme of Administrations. Power, duties and functions of the Committee of Management have been prescribed in Regulation 13. Approval to the Scheme of Administration is accorded under Regulation 14. Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A provides that every recognised institution shall be managed in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. Admittedly, there is a Scheme of Administration of the Society, which runs the institution. Clause 7 of the Scheme provides the procedure for the enrollment of the members of the General Body. Certain conditions have been laid down for acquiring the membership. If the Committee of Management does not approve the membership of a particular person, the matter is to be put up for consideration before the General Body. If the General Body confers the status of membership on a particular person, he will be treated as a member and if General Body turns down the proposal to accept a particular person as a member, the draft of membership fee furnished by him shall be returned. The decision of the General Body in the matter is final. Clause 9 of the Scheme provides for the term of the Committee of Management. After the expiry of the term of 3 years and one month, the Committee shall cease to function. If elections are not held within the prescribed time, the DDE concerned has been authorised to nominate a person of his choice as Authorised Controller who shall have full rights to manage the affairs of the institution. It shall be the duty of the Authorised Controller to ensure that the election to constitute the new Committee of Management is fully saddled with all expendition. The term of the Authorised Controller comes to an end no sooner the newly constituted Committee of Management takes over.
8. Sri Ajit Kumar learned Counsel for Rajendra Pal Singh, Ex-manager, urged that bare reading of these two clauses of the Scheme makes it clear that the Authorised Controller has no authority to exercise power of enrolling the members as his duty simply is to manage the affairs of the institution till such period a new Committee of Management conies into being Sri Arun Tandon repelled the above submission and maintained that the Authorised Controller steps into the shoes of the Committee of Management and all the powers, which are vested in the Committee of Management, are exercisable by the Authorised Controller. According to him, powers of various office bearers and the members of the Committee of Management are to be concentrated for being exercised in one man, who is termed as Authorised Controller. I find it difficult to agree with Sri Arun Tandon on the point. Democracy is the signature tune of our Constitution. It is life and blood of all our institution. The concept of democracy is the Central idea in constituting the elected Committees of Management of the various recognised educational institutions. The Authorised Controller is appointed in certain specified circumstances, such as, where the elected body is working against the interest of the institution, it is squandering and eating away the resources of the Society, it is guilty of misfeasance and non-feasance in running the institution or where a void has come into being on account of expiry of the term of the elected Committee of Management. There are certain situations when the term of the elected body has come to an end and the new body has not come into being. To fill up this yawning gap, some arrangement has to be made so that the smooth functioning of the institution may not be hampered. It is to fill up this void or vacuum that the appoint of an Authorised Controller has been contemplated. The position of the Authorised Controller, therefore, is that of a caretaker who has to remain in office as a stood gap arrangement. The primary duty of the Authorised Controller is to ensure that the new Committee of Management, after due elections is saddled. During this interregnum the Authorised Controller has to perform the ordinary duties with a view to ensure smooth running of the affairs of the institution and to person the various day-to-day functions. Certainly an Authorised Controller cannot be treated as an alter ego of the Committee of Management. It is also not synonymous to the Committee of Management. The Authorised Controller cannot subrogate himself to the position of a Committee of Management. He is merely a substitute of the Committee of Management to perform a specific and limited role and to remain in the office till the duly elected Committee of Management comes into being. At best, it can said that he possesses a reflected glory of the Committee of Management. A reflection cannot take place of the original object. An Authorised Controller though is a substitute or alternative to fill up the gap, cannot take such steps as would alter the composition of the Society itself. The basic structure of the Society cannot be changed by him by enrolling the new members who may not be acceptable to the original founder and life members of the Society. It is not expected that an Authorised Controller by virtue of his being in office for all short period and that too, to meet certain contingency, shall thrust or impose upon the original members the newly enrolled members, who may or may not be acceptable to the Society, Enrollment of members is a sensitive task and may some times alter the basic structure and complexion of the Society. The act of the Authorised Controller may run counter to the original aims and objects and the wishes of the original members of the Society.
9. The Society, as a matter of fact is a compendious name of group of person who have voluntarily agreed to join for furtherance of their certain objects. This right to form a Society as envisaged in Article 19 of necessarily implies that the persons form the Association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admitted in the Association. This aspect of the matter came to be considered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 966, in which the provisions of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962, came to be considered, vis-a-vis, right of the members of registered Society known as Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, which was constituted for the development of Hindi and its propagation throughout the country. It was held that any law, which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it will be a law violating the right to form an association. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, it was observed does not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of the original Society; what it does is to alter the composition of the Society itself. The result of this change in composition is that the members who voluntarily formed the association arc now compelled to act in that association with other members who have been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership they had no say. Such alteration in the composition of association itself clearly interferes with the right to function as members of the association, which was voluntarily formed by the original founders. The Act it was held, violates the rights of the original members of the Society to form an association guaranteed under Article 19(l)(c) of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on the earlier decision reported in G.K. Ghosh v. EX. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812, in which the Apex Court accepted the principle that the Government servant who may have formed an association could not be compelled to resin from it by imposition of a condition of recognition of the association by the Government and that if the Government servants are required to cease to be members that would be a violation of the right under Article 19(l)(c), G.K. Ghose's case, thus, supports the view that the right to form an association includes the right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the association compulsorily will be breach of the right to form an association. In State of Madras v. G.K. Rao, AIR 1952 SC 196, it was observed that the work 'form', therefore, must refer not only to the initial commencement of the association but also to the continuance of the association as such.
10. An inspiration may be drawn from the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to come to the conclusion that the act of the Authorised Controller who is appointed to meet certain exigencies, to enroll new member, clearly violates the rights of the original and life members of the Society, inasmuch as, the new members, imposed upon the Society by the Authorised Controller may not be acceptable to them. The fundamental right of the original members to form an association or Society, which takes within its swoop, to continue the association is undoubtedly infracted by the unwarranted act of the Authorised Controller and therefore, has to be termed as bad in law.
11. The view, which I am taking in the present case, docs not stand in isolation. It is fortified by an earlier decision of this Court reported in B.S.M. Samiti, Roorkee and Anr. v. District Magistrate, Haridwar and Anr., 1995 (2) HVD 169, in which the question was whether the State Government or the District Magistrate or for that matter, the D.I.O.S. have the legal right to pass orders and issue directions for enrolling persons of their choice on the persons who themselves want to become the members of the General Body of the Maha Sabha to be enrolled as members in spite of the fact that the Society/Maha Sabha docs not accept them nor accept their proposal to become members. The answer was given in negative and it was observed, that unless there was any such provision, which compels the Society and its members to accept the persons as members by statutory law, no such enrollment is legally possible and if it is made by any statute, that would be in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution. Somewhat more precise and direct Authority is to be found in another decision of this Court reported in S.K. Misra and Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools and Anr., (1996) 2 UPLBEC 896, Paragraph 5 and 6 of the report read as follows :-
"5. It is an established principle that when there is not validly elected Managing Committee or when there is doubt or dispute with regard to the eligibility or entitlement of a particular group of body to manage a Society particularly when it relates to run and educational institution in order to obviate impulses or void created thereby Authorised Controller is appointed or sometimes the District Inspector of Schools is allowed to carry on the Management of the Institution as a stop gap measure with a view to hold the election and hand over the charge. It is also an accepted proposition that such Authorised Controller or the District Inspector of Schools has to hold the election according to the Scheme of Administration governing the association or the institution.
6. There is no doubt, that the Authorised Controller can never be treated ask substitute for the Management Committee of the General Body of an Association. The Authorised Controller is not appointed within the scheme of Administration of the Institution. He is appointed by reason of statutory provision only to fill up the void and restore the Management of the Institution according to the scheme of administration by directing him to hold the election. The Authorised Controller is not given power by reason where of he can induct members in an association of persons or being about changes in the structure of the association much to the charge in and prejudice of the members."
12. In view of the above discussion, my firm view is that the Authorised Controller is not competent or authorised to enroll or induct new members of the Society. It is beyond his powers to enroll the new members. As a matter of fact such a course is not warranted by the very nature of the stop gap arrangement to run the affairs of the institution by the Authorised Controller in the absence of the elected Committee of Management. In the instant case, the Authorised Controller has usurped the powers of the Committee of Management or of the General Body of the Society by enrolling new members. The enrollment of the members by the Authorised Controller being against the provisions of law, is of no consequences. He cannot tilt the balance of the Society one-way or the other by enrolling the new members. Therefore, membership of the persons, newly enrolled by the Authorised Controller, has to be ignored. They could not have taken part in the elections to constitute the new Committee of Management."
7. On behalf of the respondent No. 3 reliance has been placed on a judgment given in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3277 of 1997, decided on 14th December, 2000 (Committee of Management Islamia Inter College, Firozabad and Ors. v. RSDE), wherein this proposition of law has been accepted that the Prabandh Sanchalak has got no right or authority to enroll member but therein enrollment of the members of General Body by Prabandh Sanchalak has been upheld by the learned Single Judge in the peculiar fact and circumstances of the aforementioned case, as there did not exist any member to be associated with the process of the election. Here in the present case, even from own showing of the Prabandh Sanchalak and Educational Authorities, there were four life members of the General Body of the Society, who were in existence and thus, judgment which has been cited on behalf of respondents is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The precise averments of the petitioners is that, at no point of time, any exercise or endeavour was made by Prabandh Sanchalak to verify the members of the General Body and illegally presuming that four members were alive and it was not possible to hold election, he proceeded with the enrollment of members. The Prabandh Sanchalak has totally erred and overstepped his authority in proceeding with the process of enrollment of the members. The Prabandh Sanchalak ought to have first notified this fact in well-known news papers that any one, who claims to be the life members of the Society member in any category, may come forward and stake his claim and after this exercise was over and in case it was found that there were members of General Body of the Society, then the duty of enrolling members should have been cast upon the aforementioned members. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, from the own showing of the Prabandh Sanchalak, there existed four life members of the General Body of the Society, then Prabandh Sanchalak had no authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the process of enrollment of members and thus, entire exercise which has been undertaken by the Prabandh Sanchalak for enrollment of members is void and nullity and no credibility whatsoever could be attached to the same.
8. The next submission of Sri D.S.M. Tripathi is that the body illegally constituted cannot constitute and elect legal body and further submission is that the persons who, have been elected in the year 1998, they themselves were not elected in valid election, in accordance with law, by a competent body, thus, their own origin is illegal and void. They could not constitute and elect valid and legal Committee of Management
9. In this connection, he has placed reliance in the case of Committee of Management, Brig. Hoshiar Singh Memorial Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Muzaffar Nagar and Anr. v. Dy. Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut and Ors., reported in (1994) 2 UPLBEC 800 and affirmed in Special Appeal (1995) 1 UPLBEC 149. Relevant Paragraphs No. 9 and 10 of this judgment reads as follows :-
"9. (1993) 1 UPLBEC 344, Ram Kripal Singh and Anr. v. Committee of Management, Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Neoharia, The above view was reiterated by the Division Bench again. Thus, there is no dispute or doubt about the legal position that the petitioners were not competent to hold the election of the Committee of Management and after expiry of three years and one month from the last approved election of Committee of Management i.e., 27.7.1986. Any other election held thereafter by the petitioners' Committee of Management shall be of no consequences. A body illegally constituted cannot constitute and elect legal body claiming that it Junction and continued to hold the Management for number of years even after the lapse of three years one month period. After considering the fact and legal submission, I have no hesitation in holding that petitioners have no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. They are usurpers of office illegally. Their writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost, recoverable from the petitioner No, 2, which I assess Rs. 10,000 (Ten thousand) would be reasonable amount of cost which may include the cost of the writ petition for the opposite party Sri Anil Kumar Sharma.
13. Writ Petition No. 23927 of 1993 is filed by Sri Anil Kumar Sharma who claimed to be the life members of the Society. He claimed a relief by the IInd writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.3.1993 passed by the D.I.O.S., recognizing the new Committee of Management of which Sri Brahma Singh was said to be the President and Sri Babu Singh as Manager of the Committee of Management. This Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order impugned in the writ petition by which the D.I.O.S. had recognised and approved the election of the office bearers from the opposite parties Brahma Singh and Sri Babu Singh. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. I have already referred to the decision of the Division Bench of our Court. The facts in the presence case arc not disputed that the last election duly conducted and approved by the D.I.O.S. was of 17.7.1986. Therefore, admittedly no election had taken place within a period of three years one month according to the scheme of administration. The case of Sri Babu Singh, opposite party No. 2 of the IInd writ petition that election could not be held within three years from 27.7.1986 for various reasons but the election was actually held on 25.3.1990 after information and appointment of an observer by the D.I.O.S. The election held on 25.3.1990 was duly approved and the opposite party Babu Singh and others continued to run and look after the Management of the Institution even three years period has passed after second election of 25.3.1990 and the third election was conducted by the Committee of Management and election held on 19.3.1993 was duly approved by the D.I.O.S. Further reasons and law stated in the earlier part of the judgment clearly settled in the matter that after expiry of three years and one month period, the life of the elected Committee of Management comes to an end. No reason or circumstances can be taken into consideration for extending the said period enabling the outgoing Committee of Management to hold elections for fresh Committee of Management. The D.I.O.S. in the second writ petition was wrong in approving the election of the Committee of Management conducted by the outgoing Committee of Management considering of Sri Brahma Singh and Sri Babu Singh. They themselves were not elected by the second election, in accordance with law, by competent body. Thus, their own origin is illegal and void. They could not constitute and elect valid and legal Committee of Management. The D.l.O.S. failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. He Committee a manifest error of law, in recognizing the Committee of Management consisting of Sri Brahma Singh and Sri Babu Singh as President and Manager in the election conducted in 1993 and erroneously approved their election by order dated 19.3.1993. The election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management said to be elected on 28.2.1993 and its approval by the D.I.O.S. by order dated 2/19,3.1993 are liable to be quashes."
10. Valid Electoral College is the essence of valid election. Here in he present case Prabandh Sanchalak who had no authority to enroll member illegally inducted members and held elections. The elections dated 31.8.1998 was held by Prabandh Sanchalak including members enrolled by him and thus, Office-Bearers and Members themselves were not elected in accordance with law. The own origin of Managing Committee elected on 31.8.1998 was illegal and void and thus subsequent election held by them on 31.8.2001 is also illegal and void and they could not constitute and elect valid and legal Committee of Management and infact they are rank trespassers and usurpers of office.
11. On behalf of the contesting respondents, it has been submitted that election dated 31.8.1998 were accepted and it cannot be permitted to be challenged colatcrally. From the pleading of the parties, it is apparent that right from beginning, the aforementioned elections were disputed by the petitioners. A precise objection has been filed by the petitioners before Assistant Registrar, Finns, Society and Chits on 15.12.1998 (Anncxure-11 to the writ petition) wherein the conduct of Prabandh Sanchalak in way and manner in which elections have been highlighted in detail. Similar objections were filed before the District Basic Education Officer, Chandauli, District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli, Joint Director of Education and Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits on 16.12.1998 as well as on 24.3.1999. Information was sought for from Prabandh Sanchalak as well as from Prescribed Authority, Chandauli, as is evident from Annexures No. 4 and 5 to the writ petition. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits also sought legal opinion from District Government Counsel in regard to objection raised on behalf of the petitioners. All these facts clearly demonstrate that, at no point of time, petitioners had ever accepted the election-dated 31.8.1998 and rather to the contrary, it is established that petitioners had been objecting in regard to genuinely of the aforementioned election. Now coming to the impugned order, which has been passed by the Joint Director of Education, it is reflected that Joint Director of Education has totally failed to discharge duties vested upon him, while passing this very impugned order dated 28.6.2002. On the question of the membership, the Joint Director of Education has mentioned that objection appears to be justifiable, but same should be raised before the Competent Authority, The Joint Director of Education was Competent Authority to decide the question of membership, But, here in the present case, the Joint Director of Education has clearly failed to discharge this part of obligation cast upon him, while decide the dispute. One precise question of membership has been raised before him then he was bound to answer the same. In the case of Committee of Management, Pi. Jawahar lal Krishak Inter College, Mahuwa Bari, Lar Road, Deoria v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors., reported in (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1245, it has been categorically held that once issue of membership has been raised, then the Joint Director of Education is obliged to go into this question and decide the question of membership. The reasons given in the aforementioned judgment is that for any election to be declared valid determination of Electoral College is must. Here in the present case though, the Electoral College was disputed, the Joint Director of Education did not go into this question and in this view of the fact, the order passed by the Joint Director of Education is erroneous order and is liable to be set-aside.
The Joint Director of Education in the present case has not at all adverted himself on this important aspect of the matter as to whether earlier elections are valid or not and whether the present election were valid or not. The only ground on which the claim of the contesting respondents has been accepted i.e., on earlier occasion this very Managing Committee was in functioning as such entire situation is tilting in favour of the aforementioned Managing Committee. The view taken by the Joint Director of Education is patently illegal view, inasmuch, as the Joint Director of Education was duty bound to go into this question as to whether office-bearers and members, who had held the elections were validity elected in accordance with law or not and whether Managing Committee whose origin itself in dispute had any authority to hold the election. The Joint Director of Education has, thus, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested to him for deciding the dispute. The Joint Director of Education has also failed to consider that control of tresspassers is of no use and the aforementioned effective control has no legal effect and infact, the Joint Director of Education ought to have remedied this situation instead of permitting the illegality to perpetuate. In this context reference may be taken to the judgment of this Court wherein the control of tresspassers has no legal effect, has been adverted to in the case of Committee of Management, Swami Paramhansh Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gorakhpur and Anr. v. Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur, 1996 (27) ALR 678 and in the case of Committee of Management, Adarsh Shiv Kanya High School, Syana v. D.D.E. and Ors., (1996) 4 UPLBEC 2656. Thus, in the present case, the order passed by the Joint Director of Education is clearly vitiated on each and every scope.
12. In view of the above facts, as both the elections dated 31st August, 1998 and subsequent election dated 31.8.2001 are thus, nullity and have to be ignored. A trespasser cannot be permitted to run the affairs of the Management Committee of the Institution in any manner whatsoever. In these circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.6.2002 is quashed and set-aside. The Joint Director of Education is directed to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak, who will determine list of valid members of the General Body of the Society, and after finalization of the list, persons who have been found valid members of the General Body of the Society will only have authority to induct new members of General Body of the Society and thereafter, after finalizing the list of member, then fresh election of Managing Committee be held within further period of three months.
13. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of.