Committee of Management, Chaudhary Charan Singh Inter College and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17/20.12.2007 passed by the Regional Committee, as communicated by the Joint Director of Education Saharanpur. By the impugned order, the resolution of no confidence against the certain office bearers of the Committee of Management has been disapproved and the manager of the aforesaid Committee which has become defunct after expiry of its term, has been directed to hold fresh election.

The institution run by the petitioner Committee of Management, is a recognized intermediate college receiving grant in aid for payment of salary upto High School level. The Committee of Management for running the college is elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration framed under UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

According to Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration the term of the Committee of Management is 5 years and thereafter office bearers can continue only for a further period one month. It further provides that in case elections are not held within the aforesaid period of 5 years and one month, the Committee of Management in office will automatically pave way for appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak by the Joint Director of Education, for holding fresh election in accordance with law.

The undisputed elections of the Committee of Management Chaudhary Charan Singh Inter College Goela, Muzzaffarnagar are said to have been held by the respondents on 17.11.2002, in which respondent No. 5 claims to have been elected as manager. The Regional Level Committee is said to have granted its approval to the aforesaid elections on 26.12.2003. In view of the approval dated 26.12.2003, the District Inspector of Schools also attested the signature of respondent No. 5 as manager on 1.1.2003 and since then he is said to have been working as such without any interpretation.

A no confidence motion against the President Manager respondent No. 5 is said to have been passed on 28.3.2006 and other office bearers i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 7 on 13.4.2006 under alleged forged and fabricated signatures of some members of the general body. Papers in this regard showing that no confidence motion had been passed due to serious allegation of misappropriation of funds and acting contrary to the provisions of the scheme of administration as well also for not calling for annual meeting of general body for three years said to have been submitted to the District Inspector of Schools, who without following any procedure u/s 16(7) of U.P. Intermediate Act forwarded them to the Joint Director of Education for appointment of an authorised controller in the institution. He without approving or disapproving the proceedings of no confidence appointed authorised controller vide order dated 14.8.2006 by which respondent No. 5 Gajendra Singh claims to have been deprived of his right.

Civil misc. writ petition No. 51502 of 2006, Committee of Management and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. was filed by Sri Gajendra Singh as Manager, challenging the order dated 14.8.2006. The Court by an interim order dated 19.9.2006 in the writ petition stayed the operation of order of appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak dated 14.8.2006 and also directed the Authorised Controller to hand over the charge of the post of manager to Sn Gajendra Singh.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order dated 19.9.2006 the petitioner of the present writ petition filed Special Appeal No. 1163 of 2006 which was allowed by setting aside the interim order dated 19.9.2006 and directing the Joint Director to pass appropriate order on the question of no confidence motion passed by the members of the General body as the Prabandh Sanchalak was continuing under the orders of Joint Director of Education as as stated earlier.

Pursuant to the judgment in aforesaid special appeal the notices were issued to the parties concerned but inspite of receipt of notice from the Regional Committee, the petitioner did not appear in the proceeding before it on date fixed.

The Joint Director thereafter recorded a specific finding vide its order dated 17.12.2007 that alleged no confidence motion dated 14.8.2006 and that all proceedings pertaining to it were forged and fabricated and set aside the appointment of the Authorized Controller in the institution. By the order aforesaid the petitioner was also directed to start election proceedings for electing the members of the Committee of Management within three months from the date of issuance of the order. Consequent thereto the signatures of the petitioner were again attested by the D.I.O.S. on 2.1.2008. Thereafter Election proceedings were initiated by the petitioner Committee of Management which vide its resolution dated 6.1.2008 approved the programme of fresh elections. A copy of the resolution alongwith the election programme is also said to have been sent by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools on 7.1.2008 and was also published in daily newspaper "Muzaffarnagar Buletin" which is claimed to have vide circulation in the area.

According to respondents 5 years term of the said management expired on 16.11.2007 and thereafter the Committee of Management could have continued in office only for a period of one month i.e. upto 16.12.2007 in view of Clause 7 of the amended scheme of administration as under:

Ikz''kklu ;kstuk es izLrkfor la''kks/ku

vuqeksfnr iz''kklu ;kstuk dh orZeku /kkjk la[;k

''kh"kZd

iwoZ izkfo/kku

iwoZ izkfo/kku ifjorZu dk dkj.k

uohu izkfo/kku tks vc ifjofrZr fd;k x;k

ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dh vk[;k

Lk;aqDr f''k{kk funs''kd dh vfHk;qDr vkns''k A

vuqPNsn la0 /kkjk 7

izcU/k lfefr dk dk;Zdky

in vf/kdkjh;ks lfefr ds lnL;ks dk dk;Zdky 3 o"kZ dk gksxk A dk;Z vof/k lekIr gks tkus ij vxys ,d ekl rd gh vifjgk;Z dkj.kks ls in vf/kdkjh cus jg ldsxs A ;fn 3 o"kZ i''pkr ,d ekl ds vUnj uo p;fur lfefr dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugh djrh gS rks 3 o"kZ ,d ekl ds i''pkr dkykfrr lfefr dk dk;Zdky Lor% lekIr le>k tk;sxk A vkSj e.Myh; mi f''k{kkfuns''kd }kjk izcU/k lapkyd fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk A ftls izcU/kkf/kdj.k ds iw.kZ vf/kdkj gksxs A og izcU/k lapkyd uo p;fur lfefr dks pquko u gksus dh fLFkfr esa pquko djk dj ''kh?kzrk''kh?kz dk;Zjr djk;sxk A ;fn ,d ls vf/kd izcU/k lfefr vf/kdkj dk nkok djs rks izdj.k mi f''k{kk funs''kd dks izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk A ftldk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxk A

f''k{kk funs''kd m0iz0 ds i=kad lk0&1&izFke@19954&88@97&98 fnukad 30-3-98 ds vuqikyu esa ,oa mi/kkjk esa tgkWa & 2 ''kCn rhu vk;k gS mls dkV dj mlds LFkku ij 5 fy[kk tk;s A

fo|ky; us f=okf"kZd pquko djkus esa /ku dk vf/kd O;; gksrk gS ftlls fo|ky; fd fodkl dk;Z izHkkfor gksrs gS A

iztkrkfU=d Lo:i dks ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kus ds fy, izcU/k lfefr dk rhu o"kZ ds dk;Zdky ds LFkku ij 5 o"kZ dk dk;Zdky fd;k tkuk ;Fkksfpr gksxk A

in vf/kdkjh;ks ,oa lfefr ds lnL;ks dk dk;Zdky 5 o"kZ gksxk A dk;Z vof/k lekfIr gks tkus ij vxys ,d ekl rd gh vifjgk;Z dkj.kks ls inkf/kdkjh cus jg ldsxs A ;fn 5 o"kZ i''pkr ,d ekl ds vUnj vop;fur lfefr dk;Z Hkkj xzg.k ugh djrh gS rks 5 o"kZ ,d ekl i''pkr dkykrhr lfefr dk dk;Zdky Lor% lekIr le>k tk;sxk vkSj e.Myh; la;qDr f''k{kk funs''kd }kjk izcU/kd lapkyd fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk ftls izcU/kkf/kdj.k ds iw.Zk vf/kdkj gksxs A og izcU/k lapkyd uop;fur lfefr dks pquko u gksus dh fLFkfr esa pquko djk dj ''kh?kzrk''kh?kz djk;sxk A ;fn ,d ls vf/kd izcU/k lfefr vf/kdkj dk nkok djs rks izdj.k e.Myh; la;qDr f''k{kk funs''kd dks izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk A ftl dk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxk A

Lak''kks/ku gsrq laLrqfr dh tkrh gS A

g0 vLi"V ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd eqt~tQj uxj A

i= fuxZeu dh frfFk 27-6-2000 ls vuqeksfnr iz''kklu ;kstuk dh /kkjk 7 esa izLrkfor la''kks/ku Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS A g0 vLi"V la;qDr f''k{kk funs''kd lgkjuiqj e.My] lgkjuiqj

The contention on behalf of respondent No. 5 in short is that petitioner No. 1 cannot be said to a validly elected as manager.

According to the respondents part VI Chapter II Section 80 of the representation of the people Act, 1951 provides that "no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with provision of the part" therefore he has no remedy except to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It is stated that the petitioner in paragraph 4 of writ petition has himself come out with a case that petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 are life members of the general body and were never elected as office bearers of the Committee of Management hence they have no legal right for filing this writ petition. In so far as writ petition No. 962 of 2008; Committee of Management and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. is concerned it is submitted that it has also been filed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 as life member. It is stated that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of law laid down by the following judgments, these writ petition are not maintainable wherein it has been held that life members have no locus standi to file this writ petition. In view of mention judgments

1997 (1) UPLBEC 415 (D.B.) Dr. P.P. Rastogi and Ors. v. Meerut University, Meerut and Ors.

2006 (2) UPLBEC 1372 Bhagwan Kaushik v. State of U.P.

It is further submitted that the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Regional Committee granting permission to the petitioner to start the election proceeding as well as consequent order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the DIOS and election proceedings thereafter by the petitioner Committee of Management are liable to be quashed in view of law settled by pronouncement in the following decisions.

2006 (10) SCC 616 (S.C) Gurdeep singh Dhillon v. Satuapal Singh and Ors.

Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingirid Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,

1992 (2) UPLBEC 1232 Hirdaya Narain Rai v. Deputy Director of Education IVth Region Varanasi and Ors.

1993 (2) UPLBEC 1333 Basant Prasad Srivastava and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others,

Nanhoo Mal and Others Vs. Hira Mal and Others,

In the aforesaid decision it has been consistently held by the Courts that the Committee of Management after expiry of its term has no legal right to proceed for holding fresh election which can be held only by a Prabandh Sanchalak in consonance of the scheme of administration.

In para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has averred that all the papers submitted by respondent No. 5 are forged and fabricated.

It is settled law that election of the Committee of Management of educational institution can be successfully challenged before a civil court as disputed questions of facts require adjudication on basis of oral and documentary evidence.

Therefore the present writ petition is not liable to interference in view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and is liable to dismissed as not maintainable.

The law is well settled that if a writ petition is not maintainable for the reason of being barred by statuary provisions or settled provisions of law before entering into disputed question of facts with regard to any election proceedings under Article 226 it is necessary for the Court to first decide question of law and maintainability of the writ petition before deciding the case on merits. It is stated that in view of judgment rendered in Committee of Management, Mubarakpur Inter College and Another Vs. Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) and Others, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to hold election if time has expired but the Regional Committee through Chairman as its Joint Director and District Inspector of Schools have against law permitted the respondents by the impugned order to initiate election proceeding which is against well settled norms and principles of law; that the order dated 17.12.2007 by which no confidence motion has been rejected by recoding specific finding of facts that all alleged forged proceeding are not proper in eye of law. Finding in the impugned order have neither been challenged by the petitioner nor pressed at a time of arguments. Any question of facts requiring adjudication as to whether the proceedings submitted before the authorities by any party are forged and fabricated it can only be decided by a civil court on the basis of documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties which is not feasible in writ jurisdiction in view of judgment of this Court dated 16.1.2008 in writ petition No. 2730 of 2008 that in such cases the only remedy of suit is avoidable to the parties, I am therefore not inclined to interfere in this matter where forgery in document is alleged, hence this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy in view of the aforesaid judgment.

It is settled law that after expiry of its term the Committee of Management ceases become functus officio and may remain in office if the bye-laws or scheme of administration so provide to avoid vaccume, but cannot take any policy decision for administration of the institute. The fresh election to be held by the Authorised Controller or the Prabandh Sanchalak only in such cases excluding erstwhile Committee of Management, the term of which has expired for its office bearers have no jurisdiction to hold the election after expiry of the term.

Reference in this regard may be made to para 3 and 4 of the decisions rendered in 1993 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 344 (D.B.) Ram Kripal Singh and Anr. v. Committee of Management and Ors. as well as upon paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment rendered in Committee of Management, Shukhpura Inter College and Another Vs. Alleged Committee of Management, Shukhpura Inter College and Others, upon which reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the respondent as well as upon the decisions rendered in Sri Rajpati, Manager Committee of Management, Dr. Lohia Inter College Vs. Regional Committee and Others,

In aforesaid cases laws it has been laid down that election held by the Committee of Management whose term has expired would be invalid and attestation of signatures of the office bearers or the recognition of the said committee is redundant and not enforceable in law. The order impugned in the writ petition therefore appears to be arbitrary illegal and against law.

In my opinion the Regional Committee or the Joint Director of Education had no jurisdiction of authority in law to permit the manager of Committee which has ceased to exist after expiry of its term to hold the elections for in that case it would amount to extension of the term of the Committee of Management which is otherwise regulated according to provisions of the Scheme of Administration. In the circumstances, the Authorities have no jurisdiction to permit election to be held by any person or committee of management which is not in consonance with the Scheme of Administration. They therefore cannot issue any direction contrary to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration which is statutory in nature. It any such direction order is issued or election held against the provisions is recognized as in the present case would not clothe any party by such order with any legal enforceable right.

The election cannot be held by a time barred committee particularly by office bearers who are alleged to have been expelled by the General body and vide para 11 of the rejoinder the proceedings also no confidence as based on forged and fabricated papers.

As election has already been held by time barred Committee which is alleged in view of he law stated above and considering the fact that no direction to manage the institution has been passed by the impugned order, this writ petition is therefore partly allowed. In view of the facts stated above on the settled position of law, the impugned order is liable to be quashed in so far as it directs respondent No. 5 the manager of the erstwhile time barred Committee of Management to hold fresh elections is accordingly set aside to that extent. The Joint Director of Education is accordingly directed to appoint a Pranbandh Sanchalak within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by either of the parties for holding fresh election within a period of two months and no more thereafter in accordance with law.

Since valid elections of the Committee of Management are due since a long time the Joint Director of Education shall ensure strict compliance of this order for which he is made responsible for holding the elections within time stipulated by this Court.

If any party is aggrieved thereafter it may get the dispute resolved by the civil suit.