Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Brij Ratan ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 25 May, 2006
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate on behalf of petitioners, Sri A.C. Tewari, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P. is a society duly registered under the provision of Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said society has established educational institutions at various places in the State of Uttar Pradesh Including the institution, with the name and style of Brij Ratan Sunder Arya Inter College, Sambhal, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution'). The said institution is added and recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and Other Staffs) Act, 1971 are fully applicable to teachers and staffs of the said institution.
3. Section 16A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides that notwithstanding anything in any law, document or decree or order of a Court or other instruments, there shall be a scheme of administration for every institution, whether recognised before or after the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958. Such scheme has to provide for the Constitution of a Committee of Management, its powers and functions, the Scheme has to be approved by the Director and no amendments or changes can be made without prior approval of the Director.
4. Section 16-CC added vide U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981 provides for the scheme of administration being inconformity with the principles laid down in III Schedule to the Intermediate Education Act. Section-16CCC provides for the procedure to be adopted for brining the existing scheme of administration inconformity with III Schedule to the Act Section 16-D(3) (vii) read with Section 16-D(4) confers a power upon the Director to recommend to the State Government for appointment of an Authorised Controller, in case the amendments in the scheme as per the III Schedule are not incorporated, the State Government inturn has to be conferred a power to appoint the Authorised Controller if the default persists.
5. According to the petitioner the scheme of administration, as applicable to the institution, has been enforced. A copy of the scheme has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In order to keep on records, it may be stated that in view of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981 amendments in the scheme were suggested in the existing scheme of administration of the institution under the letter of the Deputy Director of Education/ XII Region, Moradabad dated 30th December, 1983. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Committee of Management of the institution, by means of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1984, wherein an interim order was Initially granted on 23rd March, 1984. However, the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12th July, 2004 by the learned Single Judge. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, Special Appeal No. 333 of 2005 has been filed. The Division Bench of this Court has granted an interim stay order on 30th March, 2005. A copy of the said interim order of the Division Bench of this Court has been enclosed as Annexure- S.C.A.-4 to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by Sri Vijay Pal Saran. It is stated on behalf of defendants that the said interim order continues even today.
6. It Is thus, celar that the amendments as per the provisions of the Section 16(CCC) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with Section 16(CC) have not been enforced in the institution and the earlier scheme of administration continues to be operative even today.
7. According to the petitioners last undisputed elections of the Committee of Management were held on 10th January, 2001, wherein the petitioner was elected as the President and Sri Pradeep Verma was nominated as the Manager. The term of the elected office bearers Is three years. However, under Clause-7 of the scheme of administration, elected office bearers are entitled to continue till successors are chosen. Petitioner submits that the elections dated 10th January, 2001 were approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 24* April, 2001. The order dated 10th January, 2001 has not been subjected to any challenge and has become final between the parties. However, recognition granted to the Committee of Management was withdrawn vide order dated 8th January, 2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. In the said order, it was recorded that certain complaints received were being enquired and till the conclusions of enquiry, the approval granted is being withdrawn. To similar effect is the letter dated 15th January, 2002 forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools. Both the orders have been challenged by means of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5413 of 2002, wherein an interim order has been granted by this Court on 4th February, 2002.
8. There is an existing dispute between office bearers of the present society I.e. Arya Prathinidhi Sabha. One of the faction is headed by Sri Kailash Nath Singh, who passed an order dated 15th July, 2002, in his capacity as Pradhan of Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, superseding the elected Committee of Management and appointed Pradeep Verma as Authorised Controller. The petitioner challenged the said order, by means of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36324 of 2002, wherein notices have been issued and the writ petition is pending.
9. The Regional Level Committee with Regional Director of Education as its Chairman, vide order dated 6th September, 2002, acted upon the order issued by Sri Kailash Nath Singh and accepted Sri Pradeep Kumar Verma as the Administrator of the institution. As a consequence thereto, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of Sri Pradeep Kumar Verma, vide order dated 7th September, 2002. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47823 of 2002. This Court, on 18th November, 2002, granted a interim stay order in favour of the petitioner, whereby the operation of the aforesaid orders have been stayed.
10. The District Inspector of Schools, however, on 16th November, 2002 directed single operator of accounts in the institution in alleged compliance of the Interim order granted by this Court. The said order has again challenged by the petitioner, by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4503 of 2003, and this Court, on 24th January, 2003, stayed the operation of the order dated 16th November, 2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools.
11. Subsequently thereto, vide order dated 28th February, 2003, one Sri Sushi Kumar Gupta was appointed as the Administrator and his signatures were also attested by the Educational Authorities vide order dated 4th March, 2003. The said order has been challenged, by means of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13522 of 2003. This Court, by means of the order dated 2nd April, 2003, has been pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 28th February, 2003 as well as the consequential order dated 4th March, 2003. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 2th April, 2003, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of the petitioner No. 2, namely, Sri Ambrish Arya as the Manager of the institution vide order dated 26th may, 2003.
12. During this period on 10th March, 2004, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (parent body) appointed Sri Vijay Pal Saran as the Administrator in the institution, initially for a period of six months. The said term has farther been extended under order dated 3rd September, 2004, The aforesaid orders were challenged by means of the Civil Suit No. 148 of 2004, wherein an interim order was passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) dated 22nd March, 2004, directing the parties to maintain status quo. The term of Sri Vijai Pal Saran has further been extended for a period of six months under order dated 26th February, 2005. However, by means of the order dated 13th April, 2005, the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (parent body) recalled its earlier order dated 10th March, 2004, whereby Sri Vljal Pal Saran was appointed as the Administrator. Despite the aforesaid, the Joint Director of Education, by mans of the order dated 12th May, 2005 directed the District Inspector of Schools to attest the signatures of Sri Vijai Pal Saran as the Administrator of the institution and as a consequence thereto, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of Sri Vijai Pal Saran on 17th May, 2006. It is against these two orders passed by the Educational Authorities that the present writ petition has been filed.
13. On behalf of the petitioner it is basically contended that with reference to the scheme of administration, which has been enforced/approved for the institution as required under Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the rights of the management of the institution including its office bearers are to be regulated strictly in accordance with the approved scheme of administration only.
14. It is pointed out that under the provisions of the scheme of administration, the State Government alone has been conferred a power to appoint an Administrator in the institution on being satisfied that the conditions as mentioned in the Clause exist. It is further submitted that the parent body, namely, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (society) has no jurisdiction to appoint an Administrator nor such appointment can be accepted or approved by the Educational Authorities. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
15. Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Administrator appointed In the institution (respondent No. 5) submits that under the bye-laws of the society, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, the parent body, has been conferred with a power to take over the management of the institution In respect of mall-functioning of the institution or to issue such directions for the management of the institution, as may be necessary. On the strength of the aforesaid bye-laws of the society, it is submitted that the order passed by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (parent body) appointing an Administrator in the institution, cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the elections of the year 2001 set up by the petitioner were not in accordance with the approved scheme of administration and in any case, the term of the elected office bearers has expired in the year 2004 and therefore, the petitioners have no right to maintain the present writ petition or to challenge the appointment of the Administrator.
16. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
17. In accordance with Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the approved scheme of administration has been enforced in the institution. A copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which has not been disputed by the respondents. Under the said scheme of administration the power to appoint an Administrator is vested in the State Government only (Reference Clause-21 of the Scheme of administration). Cause 21 of the said scheme of administration is quoted herein below:
21. Emergency provision :- (1) when the state Government is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it Impossible to carry on property the administration of the school/college in the normal manner it may appointed an administrator.
Provided that no such administrator shall be appointed except:-
(a) On the recommendation of the committee or
(b) On the recommendation of the director of education and ....allowing the President or opportunity to submit a written explanation against the recommendation.
(c) ....
18. I may specifically be recorded that under the approved scheme of administration, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P. Lucknow has not been conferred any power whatsoever to appoint an Administrator in the Institution. Except for ex-officio President of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha being, the President of the College, the scheme of administration does not contemplate any supervisory or extraordinary power in the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha.
19. Similarly, it may also be noticed that under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the power to appoint an Administration/authorised controller in a recognised Intermediate College has been conferred only under the provisions of Section 16-D(6) of the 1921 Act and such powers can be exercised by the State Government only. The power to make an alternative arrangement during the suspension of the Committee of Management have been granted under Section 16-D(8) of the 1921 Act upon the State Government only.
20. It has to be kept in mind that the Societies Registration Act, 1860 where under the bye-laws are to be framed for regulating the affairs of the society and the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 wherein the scheme of administration applicable to a recognised Intermediate College is enforced are two different enactments and operate in two separate fields, both are not overlapping. (Reference 1988 UPLBEC (1) 736 ; C/M Hindu Inter College Kosi Kalan and Ors. v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and Ors. )
21. In view of the aforesaid provisions applicable to the Committee of Management of the institution, this Court has no hesitation to record that the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha has no jurisdiction or authority of tew to appoint an Administration/Authorised Controller in the recognised Intermediate College and therefore, the Educational Authorities were also not legally justified in recognizing such Authorised Controller and vesting him the powers to manage the recognised Intermediate College by attesting his signatures.
22. In view of the aforesaid the orders passed by the Joint Director of Education dated 12th May, 2005 as well as the order dated 17th May, 2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot be legally sustained.
23. This leads us to the issue as to whether the petitioner (Committee of Management) has any right to continue to manage the affairs of the institution specifically when the term of the elected office bearers has expired in the year 2004.
24. Learned Counsel for the petitioner with reference to Clause-7 of the scheme of administration submits that the elected office bearers are deemed to be continued till fresh successors are chosen.
25. In the opinion of the Court such a clause cannot be extended so as to confer a power on the elected Committee of Management not to hold elections even after the expiry of the term and to perpetuate continuance of the office bearers for elected earlier for indefinite period.
26. In any view of the matter, since, admittedly, the term of the Committee of Management, which was elected on 10th January, 2001, expired on 9th January, 2004 and more than two and half years have elapsed, thereafter it would be fair and just that fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the institution may be directed to be held under the supervision of an independent election officer to be nominated by the Regional Director of Education. Such elections shall be held, strictly in accordance with the approved scheme of administration applicable to the institution, and for the said purpose the Joint Director of Education shall appoint an independent election officer, within one month of the date of receipt of the order passed by this Court today. The election officer shall hold elections within three months from the date of his appointment as such.
27. Status quo as of date with regard to the management of the institution shall be maintained till fresh elected office bearers take charge. The election officer shall hand over the charge immediately after the elections and any persons, if aggrieve, will have the opportunity to challenge the said elections before the appropriate forum.
28. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of finally.