Committee of Management and another vs State of U.P.and Others

Tarun Agarwala,J.

In the morning at 10 O''clock a mention has been made on behalf of Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondents for adjournment. When the case was called out at 2.35 P.M. in the afternoon, in the revised list, the Court perused its earlier order, in which it was directed that the case will not be adjourned under any circumstances. Consequently, the request for adjournment at the behest of the learned counsel for the respondents is rejected.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion, that the applicant, Garib Singh, is liable to be heard since he is life member and that the validity of the tenure of the committee of management is under challenge. Consequently, the impleadment application No.92436 of 2008 is allowed. Necessary correction shall be carried out by the petitioner during the course of the day.

Learned counsel for the applicant is not present to press the impleadment application No.223750 of 2008. The said impleadment application is rejected for want of prosecution.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.M.Asthana, in my opinion, the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely, covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management of Arya Kanya Inter College Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2009(1)ESC 371, wherein the Court held that the amendment made in the Scheme of Administration for extending the term of the elected committee of management from 3 years to 5 years will operate only when the next election is held.

Further, there is nothing to indicate that the amendment made by the authority was with immediate effect, and would apply to the term of the existing committee of management. Consequently, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of The Committee of Management., M.M.I. Inter College, Bijnor vs. Deputy Director of Education, 10th Circle and others, 1994(24)ALR 410, is not applicable and is distinguishable. In my opinion the amendment made with regard to the extension of the term of the committee of management can only be made prospectively from the next term of the committee of management, otherwise it will lead to an unhealthy practice and each committee of management by making such amendment will keep it extending its own term.

In view of the aforesaid the writ petition fails and is dismissed.