Committee of Management, Janta Inter College and Another vs Dy. Director of Education (I) and Others

S.R. Singh, J.—Both these petitions arise out of the order dated 25.11.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut in purported compliance of the judgment and order dated 11.1.1995 of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 903 of 1995. The Petitioner-Committee of Management in one petition is the contesting Respondent in the other. The dispute between the parties, in Writ Petition No. 36148 of 1995 pertains to the validity of the Committee of Management constituted on the basis of election held on 10.7.1994 and recognised by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 8.12.1994 and the question involved in the other writ petition is whether the Scheme of Administration of the College stood amended as proposed vide resolution dated 21.3.1994 passed by the outgoing Committee of Management in pursuance of direction contained in the letter dated 4.2.1994 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the negative view of the question expressed in the impugned order is erroneous.

Minimal facts necessary to highlight the controversy and to appreciate the questions herein involved may be stated as below:

(a) Janta Inter College, Bhopa, Muzaffarnagar is a recognised institution governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The college has its own Scheme of Administration as approved u/s 16-A of the Act and other related provisions thereof including the IIIrd Schedule, the Scheme of Administration provides for constitution of Committee of Management by periodical elections and It is the Committee of Management so constituted periodically that is vested with the authority to manage the affairs of the institution.

(b) The Scheme of Administration as approved by the Deputy Director of Education visualised three-year term for the Committee of Management constituted in accordance with the Scheme with a further stipulation that the office bearers of the Committee of Management would be entitled to continue for a period of one month next after expiration of its three-year term and if during this period a new Committee of Management is not constituted, the term of the outgoing Committee of Management would automatically come to an end by efflux of time and a Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by Regional Deputy Director of Education would, thereafter, take over the management of the College.

(c) The Committee of Management which was constituted on the basis of the election held on 24.3.1991 received its approval/ recognition by the District Inspector of Schools on 27.3.1991. Its three-year term came to an end on 26.3.1994. But before expiration of its term, it had initiated the process of election on 11.2.1994 for constitution of new Committee of Management and had in fact fixed 17.4.1994 for filing nominations and 24.4.1994 for poll, if necessary. However, it so happened that no nomination papers were received on the scheduled date, i.e., 17.4.1994 and the Election Officer rejected the nomination papers which were received after due date. Consequently, due to force majeure constitution of the new Committee of Management could not take place within the stipulated period but no one was appointed as Prabandh Sanchalak to take over the management of the institution and the outgoing committee was not only allowed to manage and conduct the affairs of the College but permitted by the District Inspector of Schools to hold the election on 10.7.1994 as per revised schedule in presence of the observer sent by him and the District Administration.

The submission made by Sri V. M. Zaidi, counsel appearing for Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 36146 of 1995 (hereinafter called Pi) is that the outgoing Committee of Management had no authority to hold the election and the Committee of Management constituted as a result of the election organised by the out-going Committee of Management and held on 10.7.1994 is liable to be Invalidated. in other words. Sri Zaidi urged that the business transacted in the meeting of the general body held on 10.7.1994 was liable to be Invalidated as the meeting was called by the office bearers of the out-going Committee of Management whose term had already expired. Sri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2931 of 1996 (in short P 2) urged, on the other hand, that the Committee of Management had every authority to organise and hold election of new outgoing Committee of Management within three years and six months of its term pursuant to Scheme of Administration as it stood amended vide resolution dated 21.3.1994 passed by the Committee of Management in compliance with the general direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut vide letter dated 4.2.1994. In rejoinder Sri V. M. Zaidi urged that the proposed amendment of the Scheme of Administration providing for six months'' extension in the term of the Committee of Management with the assent of the Regional Deputy Director of Education and another six months with the assent of the Regional Additional Director of Education for the purpose of constitution of a new Committee of Management would not be deemed to have been brought about in that it was never approved by the "Director of Education" nor was the Scheme actually amended on the basis of the resolution dated 21.3.1994.

Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, I am of the considered view that albeit resolution No. 3 passed by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 21.3.1994 proposing aforesaid amendment in paragraph 8 of the Scheme of Administration was fairly well in tune with the general directions issued by the "Regional Deputy Director of Education" vide letter dated 4.2.1994 but no amendment was actually made in the Scheme of Administration pursuant to the said resolution nor could it be made unless approved by the Director of Education in that Sub-section (5) of Section 16A of the Act clearly provides that "no amendment to or change in the Scheme of Administration shall be made at any time without prior approval of the Director." The word "Director" as defined in Section 2(aaa) of the Act includes, for the purpose of Section 3, "Additional Director" and is quite distinct from the "Regional Deputy Director of Education"---a term defined in Section 2(dd) of the Act. The argument that prior approval of the Director of Education would not be necessary in the instant case inasmuch as the amendment was sought to be made by the Committee of Management on the basis of general directions issued by the "Regional Deputy Director of Education" vide letter dated 4.2.1994 is quite off the mark and cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that any change or alteration in the Scheme of Administration requires prior approval of the "Director of Education" and not of the "Regional Director of Education". Had the amendment been made pursuant to any direction issued by the "Director of Education", the position would have been different. There is neither any allegation nor any proof of the fact that the proposed amendment was ever sent to the "Director of Education". That apart, the amendment as proposed vide resolution No. 3 dated 21.3.1994 does not appear to have been incorporated in the Scheme of Administration and, therefore, the resolution is of no avail to P 2 and the Regional Deputy Director of Education was right in holding that in the absence of prior approval by the. Director of Education, the Scheme could not have been amended.

Next question that arise for consideration is whether the constitution of the Committee of Management as a result of election held on 10.7.1994 is liable to be Invalidated for the reason that the election was organised and held by the outgoing Committee of Management after expiration of its term. in other words, the question is whether the business transacted in the meeting of the general body of the institution held on 10.7.1994 was validly transacted? The business would be said to have been validly transacted, if the members of the general body, whether or not they were present, are held bound by the decision taken at the meeting. in my opinion, they would be so bound if the meeting was validly held and the decision taken threat does not violate any express or Implied mandate of the Act or the Regulations made thereunder impunging upon the result of the election. Essentials of a valid meeting are that it should be:

(a) Properly convened, i.e., proper notice must be sent by the appropriate authority, to every person entitled to attend the meeting; (b) properly constituted, i.e., proper person must be in the Chair; the Rules as to quorum must be observed and the Regulations governing the meeting must be complied with; and (c) properly conducted, i.e., Chairman must conduct the proceedings in accordance with the Regulations governing the meeting (See Company Meetings-Law and Procedure by B. K. Sen Gupta-page 5). It is nobodys'' case that persons entitled to attend the meeting did not have notice thereof. But what is implicit in the submission of Sri Zaidi as to invalidity of the election dated 10.7.1994 is that the persons convening the meeting, giving notices thereof to the members and presiding and conducting the same had lost their authority to do so due to the reason that their term of office had already expired before 10.7.1994 by efflux of time. I am of the view that prescription of one month period next after expiration of the three-year term for the constitution of new Committee of Management only means that the frame of the Scheme thought it to be reasonable for the outgoing Committee of Management to complete the process of election within its extended term. It does not mean that election, the process of which had already commenced, would be vitiated merely because the process culminated in its completion after the stipulated period of three years and one month. The language employed in the scheme does not support the contention of Sri Zaidi. The stipulation that the management of the institution would be taken over by a person appointed as Prabandh Sanchalak in the event of failure to constitute the Committee of Management within the stipulated period is suggestive of the fact that the committee would not automatically cease to be functional. in other words, it would continue to be functional until replaced by Prabandh Sanchalak.

In Shri. Chet Ram Vashist Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, , it was held ''that where a provision fixes a time within which a public officer or authority has to act in performance of the duty, it generally means that the Statute considers it reasonable for the officer or authority to act within such period.

The Scheme of Administration may have statutory flavour but it is neither a Statute properly so called nor Rules and/or Regulations made under the Act. It is in the nature of articles of association with the command of Statute supper added to it. Rigid adherence to it at the cost of administrative inconvenience, e.g., those indicated in the Circular dated 4.2.1994 is, in my opinion, uncalled for. It may be observed that even statutory provisions imposing similar duty on a body or authority are sometimes held only directory. The principle has been succinctly stated by Justice G. P. Singh on Statutory Interpretation, Fifth Edition in the following words:

Where a Statute impose a public duty and lays down manner in which and the time within which duty shall be performed, injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescriptions may be relevant factor in holding such prescriptions only directory.

The Scheme of Administration, no doubt, visualised that the Term of the Committee of Management would automatically come to an end if a new Committee of Management did not take over the charge within the stipulated period of three years and one month of the commencement of the term of outgoing Committee of Management, but this was only directory and since none was appointed as Prabandh Sanchalak by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the outgoing Committee of Management was allowed by the District Inspector of Schools to go ahead with the revised election schedule, the business transacted in the meeting of the general body held on 10.7.1994 cannot be invalidated inasmuch as de facto doctrine would come into play.

Breach, if any, of a provision in the Regulations or approved scheme of Administration pertaining to election of the office bearers to the Committee of Management may violate the decisions token at the meeting if it is found that the breach is of a mandatory provision and such breach has materially affected the result of the election. Breach or violation of either the Regulations or the approved Scheme of Administration not materially affecting the result of the election would not invalidate the decision taken at the meeting of the general body convened for the purpose of electing the office bearers and the members of the Committee of Management for. in my opinion, a trivial lapse in the conduct of election should not be visited with the consequences of ultra vires doctrine. For the reasons stated above, I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in Basant Prasad Srivastava v. State of U.P. 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1333 para 7.

It may be observed that PI claims itself to be validly constituted Committee of Management on the basis of the alleged resolution passed by the general body of the institution in its meeting allegedly held on 17.4.94, but the fact of the matter is that 17.4.1994 was the date fixed for filing nomination and the meeting of the general body was scheduled for 24.4.1994 and not for 17.4.1994 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the members of the general body were ever given notice of the alleged meeting on 17.4.1994. That apart, the alleged office bearers of PI admittedly participated in the deliberation of the meeting held on 10.7.1994, i.e., in the election in question. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has committed no error in rejecting the representation filed by PI and recognising P2 as validly constituted Committee of Management.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed with cost on parties. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad who may examine the necessity of issuing a general circular requiring the institutions governed by the Act to get their Schemes suitably amended making therein provisions for annual submission of the list of members of the general body to the District Inspector of Schools as well as Regional Deputy Director of Education and continuance of the outgoing Committee of Management for a reasonable period, say three months, next after its stipulated period, as care-take/ Committee of Management with limitation specified on its power for the purpose of constitution of the new Committee of Management within its extended term.