Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Of L.P.C. Arya ... vs Deputy Director Of Education ... on 23 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(4)AWC23
Author: O.P. Garg
Bench: O.P. Garg
JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders dated 26.5.1997. Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (for short 'D.D.E.') (Madhyamik). Agra and the consequential order dated 31.5.1997/4.6.1997. Annexure-8 to the writ petition whereby Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri respondent No. 3 assumed office of Manager in place of the Authorised Controller and it is prayed that the orders aforesaid be quashed and the respondent No. 3 Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri and respondent No. 4 Virendra Chaudhary, who respectively claim themselves to be the Manager and President of the Committee of Management, be restrained from acting and functioning as such . The necessary facts in the wake of which the present writ petition has come up may be stated as follows.
2. There is a Girls' School, which was originally known as Arya Samaj Girls' School, Mathura. which came to be subsequently named as Lakshman Prasad Chaturvedi Arya Kanya Inter College. This institution has been established by the Arya Samaj. Tilak Dwar Mathura, an unit of the apex body-U. P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The institution is duly recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P.. Allahabad. In the year 1980. the D.D.E. had approved a scheme of administration which governs the management and conduct of the affairs of the institution through a Committee of Management elected under its provisions. A copy of the duly approved scheme of administration is Annexure-R.A. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. As per clause 7 of the scheme of administration, the term of the Committee of Management is three year with the rider that the term of each one of the office-bearers shall continue till their successors are elected.
3. The last elections to constitute a Committee of Management were admittedly held on 22nd July, 1988 in which Gopal Das Saudagar and Jai Kumar Mangal were elected respectively as President and Manager of the Committee. The dispute arose when Dharmendra Saxena claimed himself to be the President of the Committee having been elected in the meeting of the general body on 28.1.1990. It is alleged that since Sri Saxena acted against the interest of the institution and had set up an election in his favour, he was removed from the membership of the general body by the Arya Samaj in its meeting dated 25.9.1991 and the apex body also held the election of Sri Saxena as illegal and informed the Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools (for short 'R.I.G.S.'). Agra. However, on 4.2.1992, the R.I.G.S. directed for the attestation of signatures of Krishna Gopal Gupta as Manager with the restriction that he shall get the new scheme of administration approved by the competent authority and the election shall be held in accordance with the procedure envisaged in the new scheme. The District Inspector of Schools (for short 'D.I.O.S.') attested the signatures of Sri Krishna Gopal Gupta on 5.2.1992. The above order passed by the R.I.G.S. remained uncomplied with. A Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9908 of 1992 was filed in which an interim order was passed on 23.3.1992 whereby the implementation of the orders dated 4.2.1992 and 5.2.1992 was stayed and it was further directed that in case the Authorised Controller is already managing the affairs of the institution, he shall continue to manage the same and if no Authorised Controller is appointed, necessary steps for appointment of Authorised Controller, at an early date, shall be taken. Accordingly on 1.5.1992. the Regional D.D.E., Agra appointed an Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the institution. According to the petitioners, elections to constitute a new Committee of Management could not take place on account of the dispute about the members of the general body. i.e.. voters' list between the rival groups. With a view to resolve the dispute, the apex body--U. P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha appointed one Badam Singh as Returning Officer to finalise the list of voters. It is alleged that he called a meeting of the warring groups on 25.8.1996 and, therefore, at least by that date, no election to constitute a Management Committee had taken place. On 29.8.1995. the Writ Petition No. 9908 of 1992 came to be dismissed and the interim order dated 23.3.1992 was discharged. On behalf of the petitioners, it is urged that the respondent No. 3 Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri manipulated certain fake elections alleged to have taken place on 1.5.1996. He approached the D.D.E. on 5.5.1997. i.e.. after one year of the election, to recognise the elections and to hand over the charge of the institution after discharging the Authorised Controller appointed on 1.5.92. The D.D.E. passed the impugned order on 31.5.1997, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby he not only relieved the Authorised Controller of his duties but also recognised the Committee of Management of which Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri claimed himself to be the Manager and that on 4.6.1997, the Authorised Controller had handed over the charge to the Committee of Management of which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 held out to be the Manager and President respectively. The stand taken by the petitioners is that the D.D.E. had no authority or jurisdiction to recognise the election or to deal with the validity of the alleged elections held on 1.5.1996 and. therefore, the impugned order is illegal. It is also alleged that since scheme of administration has not been amended to bring in line with the provisions of Section 16CC of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), elections could not be held and if at all elections were to be held, they were to be conducted under the supervision of the Authorised Controller. The assertion of the petitioners in that the alleged exercise which has been taken on 1.5.1996 was nothing but ghost elections. For this reason, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders.
4. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Khare, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as learned standing counsel, who appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
5. At the initial stage of the filing of this writ petition, an interim order was passed on 7.7.1997. This order was challenged by Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri respondent No. 3 by filing Special Appeal No. 338 of 1997. The said appeal has been disposed of on 12.8.1997 with the observation that if Sri Shastri files an application for recall/modification of the interim order dated 7.7.1997 by 19.8.1997, after serving a copy on the petitioners, the petition shall be listed for admission and consideration of the application on 27.8.1997 and till 27.8.1997, status quo regarding management of the institution as prevailing on the date of the order, i.e., 12.8.1997 will continue. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management on which Krishna Gopal Gupta claims himself to be the Manager, and petitioner No. 2, Dr. Brahma Nand Sharma, who claims himself to be the Secretary of Arya Samaj. local unit, Mathura. The contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have taken the case that both Krishna Gopal Gupta and Brahma Nand Sharma ceased to have any concern with the general body or the institution ; both of them were expelled from the membership of U. P. Arya Samaj on account of financial mismanagement on 9.4.1995 : both these persons, along with one Lalta Prasad Garg are said to have been involved in criminal cases which are pending against them. It is also alleged that since the orders dated 4.2.1992 and 5.2.1992 giving recognition to the alleged Committee of Management of which Dharmendra Saxena and Krishna Gopal Gupta. claim themselves to be the President and Manager respectively, had been challenged and stayed in Writ Petition No. 9908 of 1992. the question of amendment being effected in the scheme of administration did not arise. According to the contesting respondents, it is true that Sri Badam Singh was appointed as Returning Officer but he never conducted the proceedings and as a matter of fact, the apex body issued a communication on 21.8.1996, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the counter-affidavit, whereby Badam Singh was prevented from taking any steps or to initiate action. It is alleged that the U. P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha appointed Sri C. B. Nivesh. Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, as Returning Officer for getting the elections conducted. Sri Nivesh held the election proceedings. In a meeting held on 14.4.1996. the officebearers of the Antarang Sabha, namely Arya Samaj Tilak Dwar, Mathura, were elected and the office-bearers so elected constituted a complete Antarang Sabha at a meeting held on 21.4.1996. Thereafter meeting of the Antarang Sabha took place on 1.5.1996 in which a new Committee of Management of the institution was elected. A copy of the proceedings of the meeting held on 1.5.1996 is Annexure-10 to the counter-affidavit. After elections, the intimation of the constitution of the new Committee of Management and the election of the new office-bearers was given to all the educational authorities and on 7.8.1996. Regional Joint Director of Education passed an order directing the Regional D.D.E. to conduct enquiry at his level, a copy of which is Annexure-C.A.-11 to the counter-affidavit. The elections held in the meeting of 1.5.1996 by the Antarang Sabha also received recommendation by the U. P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, which issued an order on 6.11.1996. Annexure C. A.-12 to the counter-affidavit. After due inquiries, the new Committee of Management was given recognition by the educational authorities and in pursuance of the order dated 26.5.1997 passed by the D.D.E., the Authorised Controller delivered the charge to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 4.6.1997.
6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. There does not appear to be much controversy about the amendment of the scheme of administration. Under Section 16A of the Act, it is provided that there shall be a scheme of administration for every institution whether recognised before or after the commencement of U. P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958. The scheme of administration has, amongst other matters, to provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. Sub-section (5) of Section 16A provides that the scheme of administration of every institution shall be subject to the approval of the Director and no amendment to or change in the scheme of administration shall be made at any time without the approval of the Director. Under Section 16CC, which was brought on the statute book by Act No. 19 of 1981, the scheme of administration in relation to any institution whether recognised before or after the commencement of the U. P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980 shall not be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the third schedule. In the instant case, the D.D.E. has approved the scheme of administration on 19.5.1980 as would be evident from Annexure-R. A. 1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. Only those provisions which run counter or inconsistent with the principles laid down in the third schedule require amendment. The Committee of Management of the institution is to comprise of 15 members, including 3 ex officio members as mentioned in Section 16A (1) of the Act. The office-bearers of the Committee of Management have been mentioned in clause 5 (1) of the scheme of administration. The term of the committee is provided in clause (7) and procedure for holding the meeting of the committee ; procedure with regard to Management and conduct of affairs, rights and duties, etc., have been laid down in clauses 9, 10 and 12 of the scheme of administration. These provisions do not appear to be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the third schedule. The fact remains that with a view to constitute a Committee of Management, elections are to be held in accordance with the provisions made in the existing scheme of administration and the persons who have to take part in elections are supposed to be the members of the general body known as Antarang Sabha. The plain facts, shorn of all superfluities, as have emerged, are that the last elections of the Committee of Management were held on 22.7.1988. in which Jai Kumar Mangal was elected as Manager. The alleged elections, as set up by Dharmendra Saxena as President and Krishna Gopal Gupta as Manager, though were provisionally recognised, could not be given effect to on account of the stay order dated 23.3.1992 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9908 of 1992. On 1.5.1992, an Authorised Controller came to be appointed in pursuance of the direciions of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. After all. the Authorised Controller could not continue to manage the affairs of the institution for an indefinite period. Badam Singh, who was appointed by U. P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha was asked not to proceed in the matter of settling the voters' list. The apex body, i.e., U. P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, a registered society, which established the institution appointed C. B. Nivesh, Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, under whose supervision elections were held. As said above, on 14.6.1996, the office-bearers of Antarang Sabha. i.e., local unit of the apex body were elected and on 21.4.1996. a complete Antarang Sabha came into being. This Antarang Sabha, which is general body, held election on 1.5.1996 in which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were respectively elected as Manager and President of the Committee. This Committee has been duly recognised by the apex society. The educational authorities, on their level, also made inquiries with the result recognition of the committee elected on 1.5.1996 was delayed and ultimately after having made the complete inquiries, the D.D.E. passed an order on 26.5.1997 to direct the Authorised Controller to hand over the charge to the new body, constituted in pursuance of the elections held on 1.5.1996. Since thereafter, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their capacity as Manager and President of the committee, are managing and conducting the affairs of the institution. The petitioner Committee of Management of which Krishna Gopal Gupta claims himself to be the manager, cannot manage the affairs of the institution for the reasons that the term of the alleged elections held on 28.1.1990 expired in the year 1993 and by order dated 23.3.1992. passed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 9908 of 1992, the operation of the order by which the petitioners' Committee of Management was recognised, was stayed and Authorised Controller came to be appointed on 1.5.1992. Therefore, certainly, after 1.5.1992 Krishna Gopal Gupta. who claims himself to be the manager was out of picture. At the moment, the Committee of Management of which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the office bearers is fully saddled and the affairs of the Institution are being managed by it. There is no dispute of any rival Committee of Management. The dispute raised by the petitioners is that the Committee of Management, which is alleged to have been elected on 1.5.1996 and has been recognised is not validly constituted and, therefore, it should not be allowed to function. One of the grounds to challenge the election of the Committee of Management is that since the Authorised Controller was managing the affairs of the institution, it was he/she who was empowered to hold the elections and consequently, elections held by any other person shall be illegal. This submission implies that the elections could only be held by the Authorised Controller and not by Antarang Sabha, i.e., local unit of Arya Samaj. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the respondents urged that it is true that after the expiry of the term of the last Committee of Management and the appointment of Authorised Controller, fresh elections are to be held by Authorised Controller and not by the office-bearers of the previous committee which has ceased to exist by lapse of time, but the right of the members of the general body which are independent from the restriction relating to the term of the Committee of Management to hold elections cannot be throttled. In support of his contention. Sri Khare placed reliance on a Division Bench decision in Sulekh Singh Chauhan v. State of U. P. and others, 1998 UPLBEC 585. I have gone through the said decision and find that though it does not squarely apply to the facts of the present case, but certainly inspiration can be drawn from it that if the Authorised Controller also fails to conduct the election to constitute a new Committee of Management obviously with a view to prolong his continuance, the general body of the society would not be powerless. It has always the right to hold the elections to constitute the new Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration even though the term of the earlier Committee of Management has come to an end. Holding of elections by the outgoing Committee of Management is one thing while constitution of the new Committee of Management by the general body of the society is another. The last Committee of Management after the expiry of its term cannot hold the elections but this fact does not militate against the right of the members of the general body to hold the elections for the purpose of constituting a new Committee of Management and with a view to relieve Authorised Controller who was appointed to meet a particular contingency. In the instant case, therefore, the Antarang Sabha/general body was competent to install a new Committee of Management after election In accordance with the scheme of administration. Elections were duly held and the Authorised Controller, who was appointed for a particular purpose was relieved under the orders of the educational authorities.
7. The validity or otherwise of the elections cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction as certainly the controversial facts are required to be sifted. The aggrieved party can always challenge the validity of the elections before a competent court. The petitioners, therefore, have a right to challenge the validity of the elections held on 1.5.1996 by filing a suit in the appropriate court.
8. The fact remains that the Committee of Management which was elected on 1.5.1996 of which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the office-bearers are in effective control of the institution and are running and managing the affairs of the institution, it would, therefore, not be proper to dislodge or disturb the said committee or the office-bearers as it would result in a stalemate. Chaotic conditions are likely to follow. The paramount consideration, which weighs with the Court is the welfare of the girl students. If the orders, as prayed for, are granted, a vacuum is likely to arise and the smooth running of the institution would suffer without any corresponding advantage. For this reason also, I do not find that it is a fit case in which extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be invoked.
9. In the result, for the reasons said above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.