AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.6.1996 passed by Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Azamgarh, Respondent No. 1, whereby he held that the resolution of no-confidence motion passed by the Committee of Management on 15.9.1995 and alleged to be confirmed by the general body on 24.9.1995 removing Ghanshyam Tiwari from the post of Manager of the institution and from the primary membership of the society was illegal and the order dated 14.10.1996 whereby he recognised the Committee of Management elected on 21.7.1966 in which Sri Ghanshyam Tiwari, Respondent No. 3, was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution.
The version of the Petitioners is that there were 24 members of the society out of which one expired and only 23 members were left and they were entitled to participate in the election. The election was held on 10th July, 1966 in which Chandra Bhushan Dubey, Petitioner No. 2, was elected as President and Shivanand Dubey as Manager of the Committee of Management. Respondent No. 3 claimed that election was held on 21.7.1996. There were 64 members of the general body of the society. In the election he was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution.
Besides other disputes as regards the procedure being adopted in conducting the election, the real dispute was regarding membership of the general body of the Society/Institution. The Assistant Registrar, in its order dated 17.6.1996, held that 44 members enrolled by Ghanshyam Tiwari in the alleged meeting of the Committee of Management on 18.6.1995 was invalid. This order has been upheld in Writ Petition No. 20036 of 1996. Learned Counsel for Respondent contends that as regards membership of the general body of the institution in question, is to be governed by provisions of the Scheme of Administration. Sub-section (1) of Section 16A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act provides that notwithstanding anything in any law. document or decree or order of a court or other instrument, there shall be Scheme of Administration for every institution. In pursuance of this provision, the institution adopted a Scheme of Administration which was approved by the Deputy Director of Education. Clause 24 of the Scheme of Administration of the institution provides that if there is any inconsistency between the provisions of scheme of administration and the bye-laws of the society, the scheme of administration will be applicable and any rule framed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits shall be not applicable on the Committee of Management or the general body of the institution.
It is contended that the rules regarding admission to membership of the general body of the institution was provided under the Scheme of Administration as amended subsequently by the institution and approved by Respondent No. 1. The Scheme of Administration provides two kinds of membership : (i) founder/patron/life member (ii) ordinary member. Any person can be an ordinary member of the general body of the institution who is adult, educated and deposits the membership fee. The desirability of admission to membership of any person is to be placed before the Committee of Management and in case the Committee of Management does not intend to accept any person as a member, the matter shall be referred to the general body and the decision of the general body shall be final. The eligibility test for being enrolled as a member of the society places certain conditions which are mentioned in bye-law No. 3 of the society. One of the conditions is that the person desiring to be a member shall deposit the fee along with an application. The Assistant Registrar while deciding the question of enrolment of the new members on 18.6.1995 alleged to be by general body inter alia held that no application was submitted by any person who wanted to be enrolled as member of the society. The question is as to whether this condition as also applicable in a case when the person has to be enrolled as a member of the general body of the institution.
It is admitted to both the learned Counsel for the parties that there are no separate members of the society and that of the institution. In this situation, if the same persons are to be the members of the society as well as of the institution, the bye-laws of the society, which are not inconsistent with the scheme of administration, are also applicable in respect of enrolment of membership of the institution as well. Admittedly the society is running the institution. There may be cases where the society runs several institutions and each of the institution has its own Committee of Management. The constitution of the Committee of Management for the institution, the scheme of administration will be applicable for running the institution. The scheme of the administration is approved by the Deputy Director of Education u/s 16A of the Act and the institution is to be governed by the Committee of Management constituted in accordance with the scheme of administration. In a case, however, where the general body of the society and lis Committee of Management are the same as that of the institution, it shall be deemed that the bye-laws of the society have been adopted except such provisions of the bye-laws which are inconsistent with the scheme of administration. Considering from this point of view, it is to be examined whether any condition which has been provided for enrolling new members of the society is inconsistent with the provisions of scheme of administration.
Clause 7 of the scheme of administration does not provide that no application is to be submitted by the person who wants to be enrolled as member of the general body of the institution. The scheme of administration as amended provides that a person desiring to be enrolled as member has to deposit the membership fee, and should be adult and educated. Clause 3 of the bye-laws of the society provides that the membership fee should be accompanied by an application. This provision is not inconsistent with the scheme of administration.
Even otherwise, any person who wants to be enrolled as member unless he submits an application giving particulars about him, it shall not be possible for the members of the Committee of Management or general body to consider his candidature for enrolment as member of the general body of the institution. If he gives the particulars in the application regarding his age, education and other qualifications whether he is fit to be a member, can be duly considered. The Assistant Registrar had recorded a finding that no application was submitted by 44 members who were enrolled as new members of the society on 18.6.1995 and no contrary finding has been recorded by Respondent No. 1 that these persons have submitted application for enrolment. The election held on the basis of new 44 members alleged to be enrolled on 18.6.1995 cannot be sustained. Respondent No. 1 has not further recorded any specific finding that those 44 members had, in fact, deposited the membership fee prior to their enrolment as members on 18.6.1995. The amount of membership fee was deposited in a Bank on 12.9.1995.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further assailed the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 26.6.1996 holding that no-confidence motion passed against Respondent No. 3 by the Committee of Management on 15.9.1995 was invalid on the ground that the order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and secondly, he had no authority in law to decide any dispute of single office bearer of the Committee of Management and placed reliance upon the decision Committee of Management, Shambhoo Nath Inter College, Shikarpur, Bulandshahr v. Deputy Director of Education Ist Region, Meerut and Ors. (1996) 1 UPLBEC 109, wherein it was held that where there is a casual vacancy of Manager of a Committee of Management due to death of Elected Manager, the Deputy Director of Education has no jurisdiction u/s 16A (7) to decide such dispute as the Deputy Director of Education has power to decide such dispute when there are two rival Commitees of Management claiming actual control of the affairs of the institution.
Respondent No. 1 issued a letter to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 26.6.1996 on the basis of the letter written by the District Inspector of Schools. He expressed the view in relation to the queries made by him. Respondent No. 1 held that if the no-confidence motion is to be passed, it should be by majority of 2/3 members. The procedure for passing no-confidence motion was not followed in accordance with the provisions of scheme of administration. As regards removal of Respondent No. 3 from the post of Manager in the meeting alleged to be held on 15th September, 1995 has no relevance as the term of that Committee of Management has expired. As regards the question of removal from membership is concerned, it was open to the Petitioner to lead evidence before the Deputy Director of Education that there was justifiable ground on the charges mentioned against him. The Petitioners have not established before Respondent No. 1 that any valid resolution was passed on 15th September, 1995 alleged to have been approved by the general body on 24.9.1995 removing Respondent No. 3 from the membership of the society.
The last submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is that Respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding that the Committee of Management elected on 21st July, 1996 is in effective control of the institution and if the Petitioners are aggrieved against the incorrect decision regarding the election of the Committee of Management, they may be directed to seek their remedy in a competent court of law.
A perusal of the order of Respondent No. 1 indicates that Respondent No. 1 held that Ghanshyam Tiwari was former Manager of the institution. He had produced cash book, pass book and the registers of the Institution and, therefore, he should be deemed to be in effective control of the institution. Admittedly Respondent No. 3 was functioning as a Manager of the institution prior to the election was held. The effective control of a Committee of Management has to be decided keeping in view, on an enquiry made, though incidentally, that such Committee of Management has been validly elected. The matter has to be decided by Respondent No. 1 afresh, keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law.
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 14.10.1996 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the matter afresh as observed above. The writ petition against the order dated 26.6.1996 passed by Respondent No. 1 is dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.