Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Shri Gandhi ... vs State Of Up And 6 Others on 1 October, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:161253 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33079 of 2024 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Shri Gandhi Vidhyalaya Inter College Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that lastly the election of the Committeee of Management was held on 27.03.2022 and the same was recognized by the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as 'the DIOS') on 16.08.2022 and since then the Committee of Management is functioning continuously as such.
4. It is further submitted that suddenly the impugned order dated 14.09.2024 has been passed by the DIOS, which is quoted hereinbelow :
"??????, ???? ???????? ????????
????????
???? ???, ????????????
???? ???? ???????? ????? ?????
????, ?????????
???????/???????/4905-11 /2024-25 ?????? 14.09.2024 ????- ???? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????-488/???????-9-2024 ??????? ?????? ?????? (???????? ?????? ??????-9) ???? ?????? 15.03.2024 ??? ??????? ??????-732/???????-9-204 ??????? ?????? ?????? (???????? ?????? ??????-9) ???? ??????09.05.2024 ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ????
?????, ????????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????-952/15-9-2022 ??????? ?????? ?????? (????????????-9) ???? ?????? 09.09.2022 ??? ???? ??????-1221/???????-9-2022 ??????? ?????? ?????? (??? ?????????-9) ???? ?????? 19.11.2022 ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? (???) ?? ???????/???????(1)?????/9335/20200-23 ?????? 01.11.2022 ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ???????? ?? ???????/??????/1466-68/2024-25 ?????? 21.08.2024, ???????/??????/486-87/2024-25 ?????? 22.05.2024, ??????? ??????/340-41/2024-25 ?????? 07.05.2024, ???????/??????/112-13/2024-25 ?????? 10.04.2024 ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ???????/4483-89/2022-23 ?????? 16.08.2022 ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????/??????????? ??????????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????????? (??????) ???????? ????????? ??? ???????????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ???????
?????
(??? ????? ???????) ???? ???????? ????????
?????????"
5. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 14.09.2024 is without jurisdiction as the DIOS has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order dated 16.08.2022.
6. It is further submitted that after passing the order for attestation of signature and recognition of the Committee of Management, the DIOS has become functus officio and if there is any dispute, the power is vested with the Regional Level Committee.In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgements of this Court passed in the cases of Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter College and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2004) 3 UPLBEC 2731], [2010 (2) ADJ 589] and Committee of Management, Anjuman Nidayatul Islam High School and another vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2013 (5) ESC 2748 (All)].
7. It is further submitted that prior to the passing of the impugned order at no point of time any opportunity was given, rather the same has been passed on the dictates of the higher authorities which could be seen from the impugned order itself.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel has submitted that the DIOS is bound to comply with the orders passed by the higher authorities, hence there is no illegality in passing the impugned order dated 14.09.2024 but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the judgements relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the impugned order dated 14.09.2024 has been passed de-recognizing the Committee of Management by recalling its earlier order of recognition dated 16.08.2022 by giving reference to the letters written by the higher authorities which is nothing but an order passed without application of mind for the reasons, if any of which the petitioner has never been made known about.
10. The DIOS after granting recognition and attesting the signature has become functus officio in view of the law settled by this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter College and Anr. (supra) and Committee of Management, Anjuman Nidayatul Islam High School and Anr. (supra). The relevant paragraph no. 19 is quoted hereinbelow:-
"19. As already mentioned, herein-before, in the present case in view of the Government Order dated 20th October, 2008 the Regional Level Committee ceased to have any jurisdiction to decide the election dispute of its own. The Regional Level Committee gets the power to decide the dispute relating to attestation of the signature of the Manager including recognition of Committee of Management only when the matter is referred by the District Inspector of Schools and not otherwise. Once the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signatures of the Manager and recognized the person to be the Manager he becomes functus officio to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee. He does not possess any power to review as no such power has been conferred by the Statute. The only course open to the aggrieved person is to approach the higher authorities. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by Sri Gajendra Pratap have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The order passed by the learned single Judge, on this aspect, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
11. The relevant paragraph no. 13 of the judgment/order passed in the case of Committee of Management, Anjuman Nidayatul Islam High School and Anr. (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:-
'13. A Division Bench of the Court in C/M Sri Yadvesh Inter College & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2011 (8) ADJ 493, has taken the view that once the District Inspector of Schools attests the signatures of the Manager, he becomes functus officio and the only remedy available to a person who subsequently raises a dispute is to approach the Regional Joint Director of Education who is the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee. The relevant observations are:-
" ................................. We are of the considered opinion that the Regional Level Committee gets the power to decide the dispute relating to election of the Committee of Manager including office bearers and recognition of Manager only when the matter is referred by the District Inspector of Schools and once the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signature of the Manager and recognized the person to be the Manager he becomes functus officio to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee even if the dispute has been raised subsequently. In such a situation the only remedy available to the person aggrieved is to approach the higher authorities which in the present case, undoubtedly, is the Regional Joint Director of Education and, this Court, therefore, was perfectly justified while passing the order dated 30.11.2009 directing the Joint Director of Education to decide the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned."
The Court, therefore, finds substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to entertain the representation filed by respondent no.3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari regarding the election held on 10th February, 2013 after the District Inspector of Schools had granted approval to election on 20th February, 2013 and had also attested the signatures of the Manager.
The submission raised by Sri J.J. Munir, learned counsel for respondent no.3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari that the petitioners had not raised any objection before the District Inspector of Schools is not correct as the petitioners had raised specific objection on 13th May, 2013 which has also been noticed in the impugned order by the District Inspector of Schools.
In such circumstance, when respondent no.3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari can approach the Regional Level Committee, it will not be appropriate for the Court to examine on merits the validity of the election held on 10th February, 2013.
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 25th July, 2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah is set aside. It shall, however, be open to respondent no.3-Mohd. Safique Ahmad Ansari, if so advised, to file a representation before the Regional Level Committee which shall be decided after hearing the parties concerned.
'The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.'
12. The impugned order dated 14.09.2024 has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as seen from the impugned order itself and the same has been passed on behest and dictates of the higher authorities for the reasons, if any, best known to those authorities which were neither disclosed to the petitioners nor mentioned in the impugned order hence the order is unsustainable.
13. In view of the facts, circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.
14. The impugned order dated 14.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 5 is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 1.10.2024 S. Kumar