Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Gangadin Ram ... vs Deputy Director/Joint Director Of ... on 25 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)3UPLBEC2348
Author: D.K. Seth
Bench: D.K. Seth
JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The election of the Committee of Management Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh, Barawan, District Jaunpur held on 21st June, 1993 by the authorised controller and its recognition was challenged in writ petition No. 88 of 1994. This writ petition was disposed of along with writ petition 37481 of 1992 by an order dated 22nd October, 1999. The election held on 21st June, 1993 was set aside. By the time the said order was passed another election was alleged to have taken place in 1996. Having regard to the said fact, the said order contained a condition that in case further election is held from the list of 87 members, then the District Inspector of Schools was directed to de-recognize the same. This condition was followed by direction for passing an order of single operation in order to ensure payment of salary to the teachers till a fresh valid election is held and a committee is recognized. This order contained a further direction to appoint an authorised controller who was directed to hold the election upon compliance with certain other directions contained therein relating to the finalization of the member's list etc. pursuant to this decision, the petitioner had been insisting that the authorities concerned should de-recognize the Committee of Management that was alleged to have been elected in 1996. By an order dated 29th November, 1997, the Committee of Management was de-recognized by the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi. The respondents had filed a representation, on the basis whereof this order dated 29th November, 1997 was recalled by the then Deputy Director of Education by an order dated 23rd December, 1997 which was alleged to have been passed ex parte. This order dated 23rd December, 1997 contained in Annexure 11 of writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 has since been challenged in that writ petition This Court by an order dated 17th April, 1998 directed single operation under the U.P. High School & Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to Teachers & other Employees) Act, 1971 to ensure payment of salary to the teachers and other employees until farther orders. Subsequently it is alleged that another election had taken place in 1999. In writ petition No. 19720 of 1996, a prayer was made that there should be no election until the decision in writ petition 88 of 1994 is given. But an election in 1996 was held and by virtue of the order dated 22nd October, 1997 passed in writ petition 88 of 1994, the said writ petition had become infructuous, which has been dismissed by a separate order passed in the said writ petition. After the alleged election was held in 1999 and the Committee of Management so elected was recognized, another writ petition being writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 has since been filed in which again an interim order was issued for single operation in order to ensure payment of salary to the teachers and other employees. This election as well as the recognition of the Committee of Management by virtue of certain orders contained in Annexures 20, 21, 22 and 24 respectively in the subsequent writ petition has been challenged.
2. Both these writ petitions are taken up together for hearing along with the other connected matters. Learned Counsel for both the parties agree that the decision on these two writ petition would govern the other connected matters, which are ancillary to these proceedings, namely, the few of them are special appeals arising out of interim order and few of them are proceeding for contempt arising out of certain matters within the scope and ambit of these writ petitions. Therefore, before proceeding to decide other connected matters, we may proceed to decide these two writ petitions.
3. I have heard Mr. S.N. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Dr. R.G. Padia for the respondents in both the writ petitions.
4. In order to perceive the situation as emerging in these two writ petitions and as has been contended by Mr. Shukla on behalf of the petitioners, it would be beneficial to refer to the order dated October 22, 1997. Though Mr. Shukla had sought to place various observations and findings made in the said order and my attention was drawn thereto, yet in my view, it is not necessary to go into those observations and findings. Inasmuch while deciding these two writ petitions, this Court does not sit on appeal on the judgment dated 22nd October, 1997 in writ petition No. 88 of 1994. The questions that had cropped up between the parties were resolved in the said judgment, which is no more necessary to be reopened. The parties are bound by the observations and findings made therein and are governed by the order that was passed in the said judgment. The operative order may be found the said judgment at the concluding portion It is this part of the judgment containing the order is only effective part which will govern the rights of the parties. The election held on 21st June, 1993 was set aside by this order and then having regard to the fact that there was an election alleged to have been held in 1996 and that the holding of that election was sought to be stayed through writ petition No. 19720 of 1996 until the delivery of judgment in writ petition No. 88 of 1994 and that there being no interim order prohibiting holding of the election and the election having been held and that election having not been challenged and the judgment dated 22nd October. 1997 having been delivered in the writ petition No. 88 of 1994, the election held in 1996 remains unchallenged.
5. Mr. Shukla had contended that in order to ascertain as to whether the election was held from the list of 87 members, the finding in the judgment dated 22nd October, 1997 has to be looked into. In my view Mr. Shukla's contention is absolutely sound and correct. But in order to rely on this situation when it is alleged that the election has been held contrary to the condition contained in the operative part of this decision dated 22nd October, 1997, in that event it is incumbent on the petitioner to make out a ground and point out as to how the election was held from the list of 87 members or from the list A, B and C as was being referred to by him. In absence of any material in writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 that this election was held from the list of members A, B and C and that in any way the list of 87 members was also included and those 87 members were involved in the election, it is not possible for this Court to find favour with the contention of Mr. Shukla since this was not challenged in this writ petition anywhere. There was no material before this Court to hold that the list of 87 members referred to in the decision dated 22nd October, 1997 was involved in the election held in 1996.
6. Mr. Shukla had pointed out from the decision dated 22nd October, 1997 that the list of 87 members was prepared by the respondents, which were found to be invalid and non-est. According to him, in the election, the said 87 members had participated. He further contends that even if 204 members had participated in the election, this number of 204 includes in it 87 members, the list of which was found fraudulent and non-est. He further contends that there were 321 members claimed by Arjun Mishra and that 250 claimed by Virendra Kumar Pandey. These three lists are described as lists A, B and C. According to him, the election ought to have been held on the basis of the members' list produced by Virendra Kumar Pandey and not through any other list. He contends further that the election has not been held according to list of Virendra Kumar Pandey and, therefore, the election cannot be sustained.
7. This submission of Mr. Shukla is absolutely beyond the record so far writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 is concerned. Inasmuch as in the pleadings of the paid writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 the petitioner had nowhere mentioned that the election held in 1996 was on the basis of the list of 87 members, which was declared void and non-est. There was nothing to indicate that the election was held on the basis of the list of Arjun Mishra or on the basis of V.K. Pandey. The election that might have been held in 1996 has also not been challenged in this writ petition.
8. Unless there are pleadings to support a contention, it cannot be advanced in a Court of law. The Courts are creatures of statutes. It has to confine to the pleadings. Unless the materials on which, Mr. Shukla is relying are available in the pleadings of the petitioner, the sans cannot be based for a decision or determination. The findings that was given in the decision dated 22nd October, 1997 is binding between the parties with which there is no quarrel. But in order to show that 1996 election was held on the basis of the list of 87 members declared void, it is a question to be gone into. Unless specific case is made out, it cannot be said that there has been an infraction of the finding that has been recorded in the decision dated 22nd October, 1997. In the absence of pleadings, it is very difficult to accept the proposition advanced by Mr. Shukla to the extent that the Committee of Management elected in 1996 is to be recognized on the ground that it was held from the list of 87 members. The election can be de-recognized only if it is held from the list 87 members. Unless there is a pleading that the election in 1996 is held from the list of 87 members, the said condition cannot be attracted. In order to substantiate a case, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to incorporated in the pleadings such ingredients and materials on which it may be ascertained that the 1996 election was based on the list of 87 members. In absence of any presumption and in absence of any challenge, this proposition is not available to the petitioner.
9. In the light of this back-drop, the question that has been raised in these two writ petitions are to be decided. Inasmuch as in writ petition No. 11857 of 1998, the election held in 1996 has not been challenged. The only relief that was claimed in that writ petition may be had from the prayers made therein, which are as follows :
(i) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of Deputy Director of Education/Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik), Vth Region, Varanasi dated 23-12-1997 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition).
(ii) to issue writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to comply the order and directions of this Hon'ble Court dated 22-10-1997 passed in writ petition No. 88 of 1994 connected with writ petition No. 28384 of 1999.
(iii) to issue suitable orders and directions in exercise of its power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
(iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case,
(v) to award costs.
10. A perusal of the prayers shows that in the writ petition the order dated 23 rd December. 1997 contained in Annexure 11 of that writ petition has since been challenged and the second prayer was for a direction or mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to comply with the orders and the directions contained in the order dated 22nd October, 1997 passed in writ petition No. 88 of 1994 and also to exercise its power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Thus the challenge in the said writ petition was confined only to the extent of implementation of the order dated 22nd October, 1997. The order dated 23rd December, 1997 contained in Annexure 11 was challenged on the ground that the same was contrary to the order dated 22nd October, 1997 and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 should comply with the said order. Thus the election held in 1996 does not appear to have been challenged in this writ petition. In other words, in this writ petition only relief that was sought for was for de-recognition of the Committee of Management elected in 1996 in the light of the decision dated 22nd October, 1997. The question for determination that arises in these writ petitions is only to the extent that the respondent No. 1 ought to have de-recognize the Committee of Management in 1996 in view of the decision dated 22nd October, 1997.
11. In order to decide this question, it would be beneficial to quote the effective portion of the order contained in the decision dated 22nd October, 1997 passed in writ petition No. 88 of 1994, which is as follows :
"The proceedings of election dated 21-6-1993 of the committee of management of the Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College conducted by the authorised controller, Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur together with order dated 22/23-6-1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur recognizing the disputed election and on the strength of the recognition order the approval of Sri Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager of the Institution is/are hereby quashed. In case any further election of the committee from the list of 87 members has been held then the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi shall within three days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment derecognize the same. A writ of mandamus is issued to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to forthwith pass single operation order under U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 to ensure continued payment of salary to the teachers and other employees till such time as fresh valid election of the Committee of Management is not held and recognized. The Deputy Director of Education is commanded to appoint an officer of proven honesty of the rank of District Inspector of Schools as authorised controller. He shall first finalise the list of members from those lists that are supplied to him by Sri Arjun Misra and Virendra Kumar Pandey with reference to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration and also the Registrar of members. Then the election shall be held after notice to members both by registered post and publication in one Hindi language daily newspaper having good circulation in Jaunpur. The election shall be held in the presence of District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur in addition to the present of authorised controller. If need be, then the District Inspector of Schools can also seek help of the District Administration for maintaining law and order situation. The authorised controller- shall hold election in the college building. The authorised controller shall declare election result the same day after counting the votes and the result sheet shall be signed both by the authorised controller and the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and also by the officer of the District Executive Officer/Magistrate in case of his presence."
12. A plain reading of the said order shows that the election held on 21st June, 1993 since been challenged in writ petition No. 88 of 1994 was set aside. In fact further election of the committee of management if held from the list of 87 members then the District Inspector of Schools shall de-recognize the same, thus, it appears that the question of de-recognition is dependent on the condition that the election if held in the meantime from the list of 87 members only then it is to be de-recognized. The next part of the said order by which a mandamus was issued for single operation till a fresh valid election is held and the committee is recognized is also dependent on the condition preceding the said mandamus. No part of the order can be read out of context. It has to be reconciled as a whole. Court cannot presume any order or conflict in the decision. The rules of interpretation requires combined reading of the whole order for a meaningful interpretation reconciling the entire process. Since the condition of de-recognition precedes the mandamus and other directions, therefore, the direction that follows the condition indicates that in case there is a de-recognition, then the directions following the condition would become effective. In case it is not de-recognized then those directions can never become effective. The expression that there may be single operation till fresh valid election is held and the committee is recognized, clearly indicates that such an election is to be held if the committee elected in 1996 is de-recognied. Otherwise, the incorporation of the condition cannot be justified. Since the condition as incorporated first and the directions follow, the same means that it had covered up the condition that might follow if there is a de-recognition. There cannot be any two interpretation of the said order having regard to the condition and the directions if read together.
13. Thus the question remains as to whether the order dated 23rd December, 1997 is contrary to this operative part of the order dated 22nd October, 1997. In order to determine the said question, we may have look on the averments made and the grounds taken in the writ petition having regard to the reliefs claimed. As pointed out earlier, the relief was only with regard to the implementation of the order dated 22nd October, 1997 and that the order dated 23rd December, 1997 being contrary' to the decision dated 22nd October, 1997, the same cannot be sustained particularly when the same having been passed ex parte.
14. From the averments made in the writ petition there is nothing to show that the election held in 1996 was an election from the list of 87 members mentioned in the decision dated 22nd October, 1997. There is no ground or averment or material present in the pleadings of the writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 to the extent that the election of the committee that had taken place in 1996 was from the list of 87 members or that the 87 members in relevant list had in any manner been involved in the election that was held in 1996. In absence of any such averment or material before this Court, it is not possible to hold that the election held in 1996 was contrary to the decision dated 22nd October, 1997. Unless it is contended that the election was held from the list of 87 members or there are any materials, it is not possible to hold that the committee of management should be de-recognized in view of the finding contained in the order dated 22nd October, 1997.
15. The order dated 29th November, 1997 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition reflects that it was passed on misreading of the operative part of the decision dated 22nd October, 1997. Nowhere in the said order it was found that 1996 election was held on the basis of the said list of 87 members. The order proceeds on the basis of reading of the operative part of the order without reconciling the conditional order for de-recognising the committee. Therefore, when materials were brought to the notice of the authority concerned, he had pointed out that the election was not held on the basis of 87 members but on the basis of 204 members, the list whereof was produced before the authorities concerned. It is contended on the basis of the petition that the order dated 23rd December, 1997 was passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner.
16. Be that as it may, since it is a question of de-recognition if the election was held on the basis of list of 87 members, in that event the authorities concerned cannot go into the question as to the validity of the list of 204 members. The authority was concerned only to find out as to whether the election was held. Since it was pointed out that it was not held on the basis of the said list of 87 members but on the basis of 204 members, therefore, the order does not appear to be suffering from any infirmity to the extent that the election was not held on the basis of the list of 87 members. Unless the committee election in 1996 could be de-recognized, there was no scope for holding fresh election as is apparent from the operative portion of the order itself.
17. Thus on the facts and circumstances of the case in the absence of any challenge thrown to the election held in 1996 and in the absence any material to make out a case that the election was held on the basis of 87 members, it is not possible to find fault with the order dated 23rd December, 1997.
18. Then again the election was held in 1996, life of the committee, therefore, was expected to come to an end in 1999. It is further alleged that an election has since been held in 1999. Thus, also the question relating to this petition has become academic.
19. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in this petition in view of the observations made above and the foregoing reasons.
20. The writ petition No. 11857 of 1998, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
21. Now turning to writ petition No. 34814 of 1999, we may find out as to the reliefs that have been claimed in the petition, which are as follows :
(i) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of District Inspector of Schools, dated 14-7-1998, 5-5-1999, 11-5-1999 and 29-6-1999 (Annexures 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the writ petition).
(ii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondents No. 1 to 3 not to continue to recognize Sri Jai Narain Tripathi and Sri Daya Shankar Mani Tripathi as Managers of the Committee of Management of Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh, Brawan, District Jaunpur.
(iii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to constitute the Committee of Management of Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh, Barawan, Jaunpur as per direction contained in the judgment dated 22-10-1997 by following the directions in its true sprit.
(iv) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(v) to award costs."
22. None of the above prayers made out a case for challenging the election that was held in 1999. On the other hand it had challenged the orders passed on 14th July, 1998, 5th May, 1999, 11th May, 1998 and 29th June, 1999 on the ground that these orders are contrary to the decision dated 22nd October, 1997. In this writ petition also, nowhere any ground has been made out as to on which basis the election held in 1999 can be held to be invalid. The only ground that has been pointed out is that it was not according to scheme of Administration and also does not conform to the findings recorded in the decision dated 22nd October, 1997 and is contrary to the directions contained therein. But nowhere in the pleadings it has been pointed out or pleaded to show that what are the infractions, what are the deviations and for what reasons the election is contrary to the direction contained in the said decision. It has also not referred to the list .A, B, C. There is no statement that the election was held either on the basis of any list A, B, C or the said list on 87 members. In the absence of any such ingredients and in the absence of any specific infraction, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the election held in 1999 is invalid. Mr. S.N. Shukla had contended that since the committee of the respondents were not recognized and its life had expired, therefore, the said committee could not have held the election. It was only the authorized controller who could have held the election. He had also contended that the election was not held within the life time of the committee. But nothing has been shown to this Court as to how the election held in 1999 was held after the expiry of the life time of the committee election in 1996. Since the Committee elected in 1996 cannot be de-recognized, therefore, the authority of the said committee cannot be disputed unless the election of 1996 was challenged. Since the election of 1999 is also not challenged to that extent, it is not possible for this Court to go beyond the pleadings and hold otherwise. In order to obtain certain relief, certain foundations are necessary. Such foundations are founded on the pleadings. Thus, the law is to be applied on the facts as are pleaded. Law cannot be applied on air. In order to apply the law, there must be certain facts, which are to be found in the pleadings. In absence of certain facts, law cannot be applied without any foundation or basis. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned, which are contained in Annexures 20, 21, 22 and 24 of this writ petition by which the election was permitted and the committee was recognized.
23. The question of functions of the authorised controller with regard to payment of salary to the teachers and other staff were limited with regard to the extent of life of the committee elected in 1996 as was passed in writ petition No. 11857 of 1998. So far as interim order that was passed with regard to the appointment of an authorised controller is concerned, that was on the basis of prima facie satisfaction that the committee elected in 1999 was not duly constituted and, therefore, the interim order was passed. Since the election of the committee in 1999 has not been challenged and no ingredient having been pointed and the committee of 1996 haying not been de-recognized, it is not possible to hold that the election held in 1999 is incompetent or invalid.
24. However, Mr. Shukla had pointed out that the election has been challenged as soon the Annexures 20, 21, 22 and 24 are challenged. These are the orders through which the election was permitted and the committee was recognized. I am afraid that such a proposition can be accepted since in the pleadings nothing has been said as to the invalidity of the election held in 1999. In absence of any pleadings with regard to the materials on which such pleadings could be found out, it is very difficult to accept the proposition of Mr. Shukla.
25. The writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
26. So far as other connected matters are concerned, the same may be placed before the appropriate Court.
27. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel on payment of usual charges at the earliest.