Panchsheel Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—Writ Petition No. 67616 of 2010 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Panchsheel Inter College, Fatehganj, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the ''Institution'') and Raj Narain Singh claiming himself to be its Manager for quashing the order dated 28th October, 2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi by which the Finance and Accounts Officer has been appointed as the Ex-officio Prabandh Sanchalak in the Institution and a direction has been issued to him to decide the membership and thereafter hold the elections within two months for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution.

Writ Petition No. 67617 of 2010 has been filed by the Committee of Management of the Institution and Raj Narain Singh claiming himself to be its Manager for quashing the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 28th October, 2010 by which the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 17th October, 2009 with Raj Narain Singh as the Manager has not been approved for the reason that it was held by a time barred Committee and the membership was also in dispute. The Regional Level Committee has also not approved of the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 18th October, 2009 with Narendra Bahadur Singh as the Manager.

It is stated that the Society by the name of Panchsheel Shiksha Samiti, Fatehganj, Jaunpur which is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 established the aided Intermediate Institution Panchsheel Intermediate College, Fatehganj, Jaunpur which is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Institution has an approved Scheme of Administration in which initially the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution was three years but was later on amended to five years.

On 1st August, 1996, the Deputy Director of Education appointed the Prabandh Sanchalak in the Institution to finalise the electoral college after including 27 life members who had participated in the 1980 election. This order of the Joint Director of Education was assailed in Writ Petition No. 26967 of 1996 which was dismissed on 26th August, 1998 with a direction to the Prabandh Sanchalak (District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur) to determine the membership of the general body according to the amended Scheme of Administration dated 30th January, 1985. The Prabandh Sanchalak finalised the electoral college by the order dated 15th October, 1999 and held the election on 24th October, 1999 in which the Committee of Management with Raj Narain Singh as the Manager was approved. This order was assailed in Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2001 filed by Narendra Bahadur Singh which petition was dismissed on 2nd May, 2002 against which Narendra Bahadur Singh filed Special Appeal No. 658 of 2002.

It is further asserted that subsequent election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 23rd October, 2004 in which Raj Narain Singh was elected as the Manager. However, Ratnesh Kumar Singh also claimed to have held elections on 24th October, 2004. The Regional Level Committee on 17th October, 2006 approved the election held on 23rd October, 2004 in which Raj Narain Singh was elected as the Manager. This decision of the Regional Level Committee was assailed by Ratnesh Kumar Singh in Writ Petition No. 60155 of 2006 which was dismissed on 19th April, 2007 with the following observations:

The legality of the electoral college determined by the Prabandh Sanchalak under order dated 15th October, 1999 and the elections dated 24th October, 1999 was subject matter of consideration before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2001 filed by Narendra Bahadur Singh. The writ petition has been dismissed on merits after noticing the various contentions raised on behalf of Narendra Bahadur Singh including the authority of Sangam Lal Shukla, the then Prabandh Sanchalak/District Inspector of Schools to determine the electoral college. This Court feels that the settled controversy cannot be permitted to be reopened by a person like the Petitioner, who did not challenge the legality of the electoral college determined by the Prabandh Sanchalak under order dated 15th October, 1999 and the elections dated 24th October, 1999 within reasonable time before any forum. Further from the record it is established that Ratnesh Kumar Singh was heard by the District Inspector of Schools while passing the order dated 7th March, 2000 and he was well aware of the electoral published on 15th October, 1999 and the elections dated 24th October, 1999 with reference thereto. Probably Ratnesh Kumar Singh was watching the proceedings initiated by Narendra Bahadur Singh before this Court. Once Narendra Bahadur Singh has lost, Ratnesh Kumar Singh has now come forward to question the legality of the electoral college as well as the elections dated 24th October, 1999.

It is admitted on record that the name of the Petitioner was not included in the list of members entitled to participate in the elections as published by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 15th October, 1999 nor he has infact participated in the elections dated 24th October, 1999. In such circumstances Petitioner cannot be permitted to question the legality of the elections dated 23rd October, 2004 in which Raj Narain Singh has been elected nor any independent elections can be legally set up by him.

In such circumstances the order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 16/17th October, 2006 does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that if the Petitioner, if so advised, may either seek impleadment in Special Appeal No. 658 of 2002 and support the pleas raised by Narendra Bahadur Singh or else he may file a Civil Suit for declaration of his being a legal member of the general body which is to constitute the Committee of Management of the Institution.

Any observations made herein above shall not prejudice any rights of the Petitioner in pending Special Appeal or in Civil Suit.

The said judgment and order dated 19th April, 2007 was challenged in Special Appeal No. 652 of 2007 filed by the Committee of Management with Ratnesh Kumar Singh as the Manager.

These two Special Appeals namely Special Appeal No. 658 of 2002 and Special Appeal No. 652 of 2007 were decided by a common judgment and order dated 24th November, 2009 which is as follows:

Since both these Special Appeals under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules involves common questions therefore they are being disposed of by a common Judgment.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants very fairly restricts his prayer only to the extent that the matter may be remitted to the Joint Director Education to decide the issue afresh with regard to membership.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, these Special Appeals are finally disposed of with a direction to the Joint Director Education to decide the issue afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, with regard to membership and if according to him the membership determined by the DIOS on 15.10.1999 as alleged is correct then no further action shall be taken and if the membership stands changed in the decision of the Joint Director Education then he shall act in accordance with law. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

It is pursuant to the order passed in these two Special Appeals that the Joint Director of Education by his order dated 28th October, 2010 held that the finalisation of the electoral college by the District Inspector of Schools on 15th October, 2009 was suspicious and, therefore, not acceptable. This order dated 28th October, 2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education has been assailed in Writ Petition No. 67616 of 2010.

It is further stated that subsequently fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held on 17th October, 2009 in which Raj Narain Singh was elected as the Manager. Another set of elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held on 18th October, 2009 in which Narendra Bahadur Singh was elected as the Manager. These elections have not been approved by the Regional Level Committee in the decision taken on 28th October, 2010 and it is this decision of the Regional Level Committee that has been impugned in Writ Petition No. 67617 of 2010 filed by the Committee of Management of the Institution with Raj Narain Singh as the Manager.

I have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Sri A.K. Sinha for the Petitioners and Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Sri Indra Raj Singh for the private Respondents. Learned Standing Counsel has made submissions on behalf of the State Respondents.

Writ Petition No. 67616 of 2010

It is the contention of Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that the decision taken by the Joint Director of Education on 28th October, 2010 is without jurisdiction as the decision could only have been taken by the Regional Level Committee. It is his submission that though direction may have been issued in Special Appeal Nos. 658 of 2002 and 652 of 2007 to the Joint Director of Education to decide the issue afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned but the said direction should be treated to have been issued to the Regional Level Committee since the High Court cannot confer jurisdiction on the Joint Director of Education if the jurisdiction vests in the Regional Level Committee. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Committee of Management of Ganga Khand Inter College, Khera Dayal Nagar, Aligarh and Anr. v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra and Ors. (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2731. It is also his submission that even if such a plea was not taken before the Joint Director of Education, it can be raised in this writ petition and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Gauri Shankar Saraogi and Anr. v. Sharda Prasad Dwivedi and Anr. 2010 (7) ADJ 589.

In the alternative, Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if it be assumed that the Joint Director of Education was required to decide the dispute, then too the decision taken by the Joint Director of Education deserves to be set aside for the reason that instead of deciding the legality and validity of the membership decided on 15th October, 1999, the Joint Director of Education has doubted that such an exercise was ever undertaken on 15th October, 1999. According to him, not only were the elections held in 1999 on the basis of the said list prepared on 15th October, 1999, but they were also approved by the Regional Level Committee and that even the subsequent elections held in 2004 were also approved on the basis of the said list.

Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private Respondents has, however, submitted that the Petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the jurisdiction of the Joint Director of Education in deciding the matter since there was a specific direction issued by the Court in the two Special Appeals to decide the matter. It is also his submission that in the absence of any power conferred on any authority to decide the membership dispute, the Court could have directed the Joint Director of Education to decide the dispute and the Petitioners are not justified in submitting that the Regional Level Committee alone could decide this dispute. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead) and others,

Regarding the alternative submission advanced by Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the private Respondents submitted that the order passed by the Joint Director of Education does not suffer from any illegality which may call for interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Short Counter Affidavit and submitted that the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur who was under suspension was reinstated on 15th October,1999 and it is alleged that he decided the membership dispute on the same date, i.e., 15th October, 1999. He has also pointed out that the said District Inspector of Schools retired on 31st October, 1999 after holding the elections on 24th October, 1999.

In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to refer to the order dated 28th October, 2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education.

The Joint Director of Education noticed that on 15th October, 1999 Sangam Lal Shukla, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur was the Prabandh Sanchalak of the Institution. Narendra Bahadur Singh had pointed that he was informed that the letter dated 15th October, 1999 was not issued from the office of the District Inspector of Schools and in this connection, he has placed reliance upon the correspondence dated 16th December, 2006 and 3rd May, 2008 issued from the office of the District Inspector of Schools. These letters mention that Sangam Lal Shukla was reinstated on 15th October, 1999 and he is said to have decided the dispute on the same date, i.e., 15th October, 1999 even though letter dated 4th December, 1999 was issued by the successor District Inspector of Schools to the parties to place their version before him pursuant to the order dated 26th August, 1998 passed by the High Court in the two Special Appeals. The letter also mentions that prima-faciethe signatures of Sangam Lal Shukla on the said list dated 15th October, 1999 appears to be forged. The Joint Director of Education also noticed that Narendra Bahadur Singh, who had been elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution on various occasions, had filed an affidavit that the persons mentioned from serial Nos. 1 to 26 in the list dated 15th October, 1999 in which the name of Raj Narain Singh was also included were not members of the General Body of the Society and nor they had deposited any membership fees. During the course of hearing, no documents were filed by Raj Narain Singh to establish that these twenty six persons were valid members. The Joint Director of Education, therefore, concluded that the existence of the order dated 15th October, 1999 was doubtful and could not be relied upon. He, accordingly, ordered that Prabandh Sanchalak should be appointed in the Institution who shall determine the valid members entitled to participate in the election.

It needs to be noticed that by the order dated 1st August, 1996 the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held in 1995 were not approved by the Joint Director of Education. He, therefore, directed for appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the affairs of the Institution and constitute the Committee of Management of the Institution. This order was assailed by both Raj Narain Singh and Narendra Bahadur Singh who claimed to have been elected as Manager in Writ Petition No. 40657 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 26967 of 1996 which were dismissed on 26th August, 1998 with the following directions:

It is directed that the District Inspector of Schools, who himself is the Prabandh Sanchalak having been appointed by the order of Deputy Director of Education dated 1st August, 1996, shall immediately assume the charge of the affairs of the Institution and shall manage the same. He shall get the new Committee of Management constituted after elections according to the Scheme of Administration within a period of two months from today.

S/Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh and Om Prakash Singh shall be associated with the election process.

The Prabandh Sanchalak (D.I.O.S.) shall determine the question of membership of the general body entitled to take part in the elections according to the amended Scheme of Administration dated 30.1.1985.

It is the case of the Petitioners that the District Inspector of Schools, as the Prabandh Sanchalak, finalised the electoral college by the order dated 15th October, 1999 and elections were held on 24th October, 1999 in which Raj Narain Singh was elected as the Manager and this election was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 29th October, 1999. The said order of the District Inspector of Schools was assailed by Narendra Bahadur Singh in Writ Petition No. 11425 of 2001 which was dismissed on 2nd May, 2002. Narendra Bahadur Singh thereafter filed Special Appeal No. 658 of 2002. Subsequent elections were held on 23rd October, 2004 in which Raj Narain Singh was elected as the Manager and this election was approved by the Regional Level Committee on 17th October, 2006. This order was assailed by Ratnesh Kumar Singh in Writ Petition No. 60155 of 2006 which was dismissed on 19th April, 2007. It is against this order that Special Appeal No. 652 of 2007 was filed.

The main ground of attack in the two writ petitions referred to above was the validity of the list prepared by the District Inspector of Schools on 15th October, 1999. The writ petitions were dismissed upholding the said list dated 15th October,1999. However, in the Special Appeals which were filed against the said judgments, a direction was issued to the Joint Director of Education to decide the membership issue afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. It was further ordered that if the membership determined by the District Inspector of Schools on 15th October, 1999 is found to be correct, no further action shall be taken but if the membership is changed then the Joint Director of Education shall act in accordance with law. 20. It is, therefore, clear that the Joint Director of Education was required to examine the validity of the list said to have been prepared on 15th October, 1999 and it cannot be asserted by the Petitioners that the list had attained finality. The submission of Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is that the order passed by the Joint Director of Education is without jurisdiction since the Regional Level Committee alone could have decided this issue. The submission is that the Court could not have conferred jurisdiction on the Joint Director of Education if the jurisdiction actually vested with the Regional Level Committee.

The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that the Regional Level Committee alone could have decided the issue cannot be accepted. Under the relevant Government Orders it is the District Inspector of Schools who can approve the elections provided there is no legal infirmity, otherwise he is required to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee, therefore, examines the validity of the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution. So far as the validity of the electoral college is concerned, the Government Orders do not provide for any authority, much less than the Regional Level Committee, which has to take a decision. The Joint Director of Education could have been directed to decide the validity of the electoral college. It cannot, therefore, be asserted by the Petitioners that only the Regional Level Committee can examine the validity of the electoral college and so even if a direction was issued by the Court on 24th November, 2009 to the Joint Director of Education to decide the membership issue, the Regional Level Committee should have decided it. The decision rendered in Committee of Management, Ganga Inter College (supra), therefore, does not help the Petitioners.

It also needs to be pointed out that the Petitioners were the Respondents in two Special Appeals and, therefore, it cannot be urged by the Petitioners, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.K. Kunhikkannan (supra), that the Joint Director of Education could not have decided the issue.

The alternative submission of Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners now needs to be examined.

The Joint Director of Education has found as a fact that the order dated 15th October, 1999 passed by the District Inspector of Schools appears to be doubtful. In coming to such a conclusion he has noticed that the District Inspector of schools, who was earlier suspended, was reinstated on 15th October, 1999 and he is said to have decided the dispute on the same date and thereafter also retired on 31st October, 1999 after holding the elections on 24th October, 1999. What has further been noticed is that even subsequent to the passing of the order dated 15th October, 1999, notices were issued by the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 4th December, 1999 asking both the parties to place their version before the District Inspector of Schools for deciding the issue pursuant to the order dated 26th August, 1998 passed by the Court. The Joint Director of Education in his order has also referred to the two letters dated 16th December, 2006 and 3rd May, 2008 sent from the office of the District Inspector of Schools that the signatures of Sangam Lal Shukla appears to be forged. This apart, the Joint Director of Education has also noticed the contention of the Respondent Narendra Bahadur Singh that the persons mentioned from serial Nos. 1 to 26 in the list dated 15th October, 1999 are not members of the General body of the Society and nor they had deposited membership fees. The Joint Director of Education also noticed that Raj Narain Singh had also not placed any papers regarding the membership of persons mentioned from serial Nos. 1 to 26 in the list dated 15th October, 1999 said to have been prepared by the District Inspector of Schools. There is, therefore, a serious dispute between the parties as to whether the list dated 15th October, 1999 was actually prepared by the District Inspector of Schools.

All that has been asserted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is that the elections held in 1999 and 2004 on the basis of the said list prepared by the District Inspector of Schools on 15th October, 1999 were approved. It may be so, but then in the Special Appeals arising out of the writ petitions challenging the orders approving the elections, a direction was issued to the Joint Director of Education to decide the membership issue afresh.

It is not possible for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide such disputed facts in this petition as evidence is necessarily required to be led. The Petitioners, if so advised, may file a Civil Suit where evidence both oral and written can be led.

It is, therefore, not possible to interfere with the order dated 28th October, 2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education and Writ Petition No. 67616 of 2010 deserves to be dismissed.

Writ Petition No. 67617 of 2010

The Petitioners have sought the quashing of the decision said to have been taken by the Regional Level Committee on 28th October, 2010. The Regional Level Committee was called upon to examine the validity of the elections said to have been held in 2009. It has not approved of any of the elections and one reason assigned by the Regional Level Committee is that the order dated 15th October, 1999 determining the list of members has been found to be suspicious.

The contention of Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that the Regional Level Committee, which consist of three members, has not taken any decision since the decision has only been signed by two members namely the Joint Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education, who is also a member of the Regional Level Committee, has not signed it.

A perusal of the decision taken by the Committee which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition shows that it has been signed by only two members and the Deputy Director of Education has not signed it. The decision should have been taken by all the memberships because there is nothing on the record which may indicate that the notice was given to the Deputy Director of Education but he did not participate in the meeting. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the decision taken by the Committee on 28th October, 2010.

In view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition No. 67616 of 2010 is dismissed subject to the observations made above. Writ Petition No. 67617 of 2010 is allowed and the decision said to have been taken by the Regional Level Committee on 28th October, 2010 is set aside. The Regional Level Committee shall now pass a fresh order in accordance with law.