Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Lakhauri ... vs Deputy Director Of Education, ... on 5 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995ALL434, (1995)2UPLBEC784, AIR 1995 ALLAHABAD 434, 1996 ALL. L. J. 186 1995 (2) ALL LR 467, 1995 (2) ALL LR 467
ORDER
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20-3-1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Education by which the order of the District Inspector of Schools recognising Sri Andaman Singh as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution was set aside and a direction was issued for appointment of Sri Ram Raksh Pal Sharma, Director Nehru Yuva Kendra, Moradabad as authorised controller, who was directed to hold the election of the committee of management according to para 8 of the Scheme of Administration. The authorised controller was to exercise of powers of the Committee of management.
2. Lakhauri Inter College, Lakhauri, district Moradabad is a recognised Intermediate College governed under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The institution is to function according to the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the Scheme of Administration through the committee of management. The committee of management is to be elected according to the Scheme of Administration. The petitioner claims that the last election of the committee of management was held in February, 1991. Sri Jiwan Singh and Andaman Singh were elected as President and Manager of the Committee of management besides other office bearers. The tenure of the committee was up to 7-3-1994. The petitioner stated that by letter dated 2-2-1994 information was sent by the manager of the committee to the District Inspector of Schools that election was due to be held. The D.I.O.S. was requested to nominate a presiding officer to preside over the election meeting and to appoint an observer on behalf of the D.I.O S. The D.I.O.S. vide letter dated 4-2-1994 appointed the Principal of Kameshwar Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidayalaya, Niwar Khas, Moradabad as Presiding Officer and nominated the Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools, Sambhal, District Moradabad as observer on his behalf to supervise the election. It is said that the election was duly held after publication of notices etc. in the news-paper in the premises of the College itself wherein Indra Pal Singh was elected as President and Andaman Singh as Manager besides other members of the committee of management. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 12-2-1994 attested the signature of petitioner No. 2 Andaman Singh as Manager with a condition that in case of any facts are concealed, it shall stand rejected.
3. It is said that Sri Vikram Singh appears to have filed a representation before the District Inspector of Schools pleading that he was a member of the general body of the committee, a number of members who ought to have been included in the list of voters were not included therein. It was urged that the election in which the petitioner No. 2 Andaman Singh was elected as manager and Sri Indra Pal Singh as President, was not legal and correct election. The representation of Sri Vikram Singh and others filed before the District Inspector of Schools was directed to be decided by an order of the High Court dated 6-4-1994. The representation of Sri Vikram Singh O.P. was thus decided by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 18-6-1994. A copy of the said order has already been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The D.I.O.S. by the order dated 18-6-1994 was pleased to approve and affirm the election of Sri Indra Pal Singh and Sri Andaman Singh as President and Manager of the Committee of management in the election on 12-2-1994. The said election was held to be valid and conducted according to the Scheme of Administration. The representation of Sri Jiwan Singh O.P. was thus disposed and rejected.
4. The O.P. Jiwan Singh, after the disposal of his representation by the D.I.O.S. who had decided the representation in compliance with the directions of the High Court submitted an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education.
5. The petitioner stated that the signature of Andaman Singh was duly attested and he had already started functioning as Manager of the committee of management. It is also said in the writ petition that no rival claim by any person including Sri Jiwan Singh O.P. was put up before the D.I.O.S. There was no rival claim about the rival committee of management or actual control over the affairs of the institution. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the election is held and there is no rival body of committee of management no action under Section 16A(7) of the Act was contemplated. The order of the D.D.E. passed on the so called appeal filed by Sri Jiwan Singli was wholly without jurisdiction and was not in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. The order of the D.D.E. for appointing Sri Ram Raksh Pal Sharma, respondent No. 3, as controller in place of the duly ejected committee of management was wholly without jurisdiction and unwarranted.
5A. The Opp. party No. 4 Sri Jiwan Singh filed a detailed counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. The standing counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 made a statement that he would not like to file any counter affidavit and the counter affidavit filed by O.P. Nc. 4 may be taken into account and the petition may be decided finally. I propose to finally decide the writ petition without formally admitting it. with the consent of the parlies.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinised the record. A perusal of the order of the D.D.E. shows that he was satisfied that the Lakhaun Intermediate College, Lakhauri, District Moradarad was a recognised Inter College get ting Covt. aid and was governed under the Payment of Salary Act and the Inter mediate Education Act. The order of the D.D.E. shows that terms of office ol O.P. Jiwan Singh has already expired the election of the commitee of management should have been conducted within a period of three years from the date of last election i.e. up to 6-3-1994, It was pleaded that 122 persons deposited Rs. 1000/- as fee for life membership. The amount was sent by bank draft. The said 122 persons were accepted to be life members. There was no objection for making those 122 persons as life members and the said persons were not permitted to participate in the election of the committee of management. It was also said that the election of the committee of management was not held within the prescribed period. It was held in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Scheme of Administration. The entire process of election which had taken place was not in accordance with the scheme of Administration and the said 122 persons should have been called to participate in the election. The manager of the committee of management was not competent to deposit the membership fee of 122 persons himself. The approval and recognition granted by the District Inspector of Schools to the election deserved to be cancelled.
7. The petitioner submitted a written reply before the D.D.E. Written submissions were submitted enclosing therewith a list of life members and expert educationists as members of the general body. It was said that the election and the records sent to the D.I.O.S. who approved the said election, and attested the signature of petitioner No. 2. The petitioner has stated that the alleged 122 persons, who arc said to be life members, were not accepted by the general body nor were they legal members,
8. The D.D.E. in his order arrived at a decision that 122 persons were made life members as it was not objected by any member of the general body. The membership fee was also deposited by each of them. Thus it was considered thai those 122 persons were the life members of the society. It was also said that non-inclusion of those 12? persons to participate in the election of the committee of management was in violation and contravention of para 9(1) of the Scheme of Administration. The D.D.E. was also of the view that the publication of the list of members was not duly made before the election. Thus the legal right of 122 persons and other person tc participate in the election was violated. He also held that since the election dated 12-2-1994 was not held in the premises of the institution, no sanctity could be attached to such election. The names of 20 persons shown as members were also said to be fictitious. The D.D.E. was not the view that the petitioner Andaman Singh, has failed to produce the original proceeding book, agenda book etc. in support of his election. The ejection of the committee of management held on 12-2-1994 was thus declared to be unwarranted and was cancelled.
9. The question for consideration before this Court is firstly whether the D.D.E. has any appellate or revisional power in the matters of approval and attestation of the signature of the office bearers of the committee of management elected for administration ot the function of the institution;
10. Secondly, whether the D.l.O.S. or the D.D.E. has any jurisdiction to decide the complex question about the legality and validity of the election for constituting the committee of management.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the D.D.E. had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the respondent and interfere in the matter of grant of approval and recognition of the election and attestation of the signature. The learned counsel Sri A. Kumar plactd reliance on the decision reported in (1994) 2 UPLBEC 800, Committee of Management, Brig. Hoshiar Singh Memorial Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidaya-laya Samli, Muzafarnagar v. Dy. Director of Education, 1st Region Meerut and the decision reported in (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1348, Committee of Management, Shahid Mangal Pandey Inter College, Nagwa, District Baliia v. State of U.P.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the D.D.E. was fully competent to decide the appeal filed by the respondent. He submitted that according to Chapter 11 Paragraph 16(8), the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have also the said additional powers and duties. The learned counsel submitted that these powers are for exercising general supervision and conirol over the D.l.O.S. The provisions of paragraph 16(8) of the Education Code are reproduced as under:
''16. The Regional Deputy Director shall also have the following powers and duties; ...................
(8) to exercise general supervision and control over the D.I.O.S."
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance en a decision reported in 1980 UPLBEC 6 (FB) Mangad Ram Yadav v. Dy. Director of Education. The decision of the Full Bench shows that the U.P. Education Code Rule 143 (1) is a mere executive instruction and cannot be given the status of a statutory rule. The Full Bench in paragraph 5 of the said decision observed :
"We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Dhata Intermediate College v. Brahmanand Singh....."
In para 6 it was held that:
"It is further clear that the order of the D.I.O.S., could not be the subject matter of appeal at the instance of the respondent No. 6 under the provisions of Rule 148 of the Education Code."
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further cited the decision reported in (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1494, Committee of Management, Lal Bahadur Shastri Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidayalaya, Kakrai, district Bulandshahr v. Dy. Director ot Education, 1st Region, Meerut wherein it was held that one committee of management treated as validly elected and given recognition, another set asserting themselves to be validly elected Committee of Management filed writ petition. Factual dispute raised as to the persons who were validly elected. The Division Bench of this Court held that the factual dispute cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
15. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision reported in (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1541, Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools. In the said case the Division Bench was considering a limited question whether the D.D.E. could determine the validity or otherwise of the election. It was also held that the D.D.E. has to conduct this enquiry in a summary manner. The decision of the D.D.E., as provided by the Act itself, is subject to the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The learned counsel for the parties addressed the Court at length and on the admitted facts of the case as evident from the record, I am of the view that according to the finding the Committee of Management in which the petitioner No. 2 was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management has sent the result of the election to the D.I.O.S. and the D.I.O.S. had been pleased to approve the said election and attested the signature of petitioner No. 2 as Manager of the Committee of Management subject to the condition unless some facts were concealed. This fact is not disputed that the D.I.O.S. by order dated 18-2-1994 had approved the election of the petitioner No. 2 as Manager and his signature was attested. The contesting O.P. No. 4 has not set up a rival claim to be the Committee of Management having effective control over the affairs of the institution. The ground of challenge by the O.P. No. 4 in respect of the election of petitioner No. 2 is that 122 persons duly made life members were not permitted to participate in the election and the legal right of such life members was illegally curtailed resulting to invalidity of the entire election. The petitioners have denied about the correctness and legality of the said 122 persons as life members of the Committee of Management. The petitioners submitted that they were not legai life members nor were ever so inducted as life members. There was no error in excluding them from participating in the election of the Committee of Management, which was held valid and approved by the District Inspector of Schools and signature of petitioner No. 2 was attested. The perusal of the facts of the present case shows that there is some serious dispute about the correctness and legality of inclusion or exclusion of 122 persons as life members of the general body of the society. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution as per the decision quoted above by the Division Bench reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1541 (supra).
16. The fact that there was no claim by the contesting O.P. No. 4 about effective control over the affairs of the institution attracting the provisions of S. 16-A(7) of the Act nor was there any reference by the D.I.O.S. for adjudicating the question by the D.D.E. about the effective contfol of the rival committees/claimants for management of the institution. Thus the only question which still survives to be answered is whether the D.D.E. was competent to interfere as an appellate/ revisional authority. As already held by the Full Bench in the decision reported in 1980 UPLBEC 6 (supra) the provisions of the Education Code do not supersede the statutes and regulations. The provisions of the Code are departmental instructions. Thus in the absence of any specific provision in the Act or Regulations it is abundantly clear that the D.D.E. had exceeded in his jurisdiction in entering into complex question about the validity of election and also validity of 122 persons as life members of the society.
17. It is also abundantly clear from the facts of the present case that it was not a case of holding of election by the Committee of Management whose term according to the Scheme of Administration had expired and some unauthorised person conducted the election which necessitated appointment of authorised controller for conducting the election of Committee of Management within a specified period as per direction of the D.D.E. The D.D.E. was not sitting in appeal over the judgment of the D.I.O.S., who had approved the election and attested the signature of petitioner No. 2. The direction for appointment of authorised controller and further direction for holding the election through him also appears to be patently unwarranted and without jurisdiction.
18. The O.P. No. 4, if desirous to challenge the validity of the election of the Committee of Management of the petitioner No. 2, the only remedy provided is to challenge by way of civil suit. Such complex question could not be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
19. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the D.D.E. dated 20-3-1995 is quashed. The respondents are restrained from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner No. 2 and his Committee of Management in Administration and Management of the Institution till they hold office according to the Scheme of Administration and for the specified term unless held otherwise by a competent civil court. The parties shall bear their own costs.
20. Petition allowed.