Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 2010
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1623 of 2010 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.D. Shukla,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.K. Pandey Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 21st December, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi by which he has attested the signatures of the Manager of the respondent-Committee of Management on the basis of the election held on 16th December, 2009.
The records of the writ petition indicate that the petitioner had also approached this Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No.67664 of 2009 which was disposed of on 15th December, 2009 with the following order :-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The election schedule has been published. The elections are fixed for 16.12.2009. After the elections are held papers shall be forwarded to the District Inspectors of Schools for granting the approval. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by such election he will have an opportunity to file objection, if any. In case any such objection if filed, the DIOS will be obliged to consider the same before granting his approval to the election held on 16.12.2009.
The petition stands disposed of as above."
The elections were held on 16th December, 2009 and on the basis of the papers forwarded by the respondent-Committee of Management, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of the Manager by the order dated 21st December, 2009.
It is pointed out by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners had filed their objections before the District Inspector of Schools on 22nd December, 2009 which were received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 22nd December, 2009. The rival party was represented by Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, who was also heard by the Court on 15th December, 2009. He, therefore, submits that in such circumstances the District Inspector of Schools should have waited for sometime before attesting the signatures but that was not done.
Sri Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Committee of Management has placed before the Court the notice dated 7th January, 2010 issued by the District Inspector of Schools requiring the parties to appear on 16th January, 2010 for hearing.
The said notice further mentions that a certified copy of the order dated 15th December, 2009 was filed in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 26th December, 2009 but it does not mention the date on which the objections filed by the petitioners were received.
In such circumstances, when the Court by its order dated 15th December, 2009 had observed that the District Inspector of Schools would be obliged to consider the objections filed by the petitioners before granting his approval to the election held on 16th December, 2009 and objections were actually filed, it was not appropriate for the District Inspector of Schools to have attested the signatures by the impugned order.
However, as the District Inspector of Schools has now fixed 16th January, 2010 for hearing, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the District Inspector of Schools shall make all endeavours to decide the matter after hearing the parties concerned expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed. Till the matter is decided by the District Inspector of Schools, the order dated 21st December, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools shall be kept in abeyance.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010 SK