Committee of Management, Nanigram Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another vs Deputy Director of Education Agra and Others

R.A. Sharma,J.

The Appellants filed a writ petition challenging the Order Dated 13.05.1995, passed by the Deputy Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Director) u/s 16A of the Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recognizing the committee of management of which Sri Virendra Singh (Respondent No. 4) is the Manager. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved by it, the Appellants have filed this special appeal.

u/s 16(A)(7) of the Act, the Deputy Director is required to decide a dispute with respect to the management of an institution on the basis of the actual control of its affairs and the persons found to be in such control are to be recognized by him as constituting the committee of management of such an institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. Explanation appended to Sub-section(7) has laid down that while deciding the questioning of actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Deputy Director "shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the scheme of administration approved Under Sub-section(5) and other relevant circumstances." The most important factor for finding out the actual control is the control over the funds and administration of the institution as well as the income from its properties.

In the instant case, the Deputy Director has held that the committee of management of Appellants of which Sri Ranvir Singh (the Appellant No. 2) is the Manager has been recognized by the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.) right from 1986 up to 1992 and it was this committee which was running the institution and was having its actual control. Having recorded the above finding, the Deputy Director, however, held that the committee of management of Respondent No. 4 of which Sri Virendra Singh is the Manager was in its effective control. He has recorded this finding in favor of the Respondents on the ground that they were having the scheme of administration and the certificate of renewal of the registration of the society with them. On this basis, it was further held that the Appellants'' committee has obtained recognition of its committee of management from 1986 onward wrongly. As regards the validity of the election, the claim of Respondent No. 4 has also been upheld by him. The above order of the Deputy Director, apart from being self-contradictory, suffers from serious Infirmities and has to be set aside for the following reasons.

(i) he has not recorded any finding about the control of Respondent No. 4 over the funds, income and the administration of the institution. In the absence of any such finding, it was not open to him to decide In favor of the Respondent No. 4

(ii) he has overlooked the relevant facts that even earlier the Deputy Director on 22.12.1989 has decided a similar dispute in favor of the Appellants and that order has not been set aside by any court or authority;

(iii) he has failed to take into account that the Appellants'' committee was in actual control of the institution even after the election of 19.07.1992 and was also making payment of salary of teachers and other employees of the institution ;

(iv) he could not have decided the issue relating to the actual control of the institution in favor of the Respondent No. 4 merely on the basis that they were having the scheme of administration and renewed certificate of registration of the society with them. Possession/control of such papers cannot be the criteria for deciding such a dispute. Such a dispute can be decided on the basis of the factors laid down by Section 16(A)(7) itself.

As regards the validity of the election, the Deputy Director has held that the election of the committee of management of the Respondents was held in the premises of the institution, whereas the alleged election of the Appellants was held elsewhere. He accordingly declared that no election of the Appellants'' committee was held and for giving this finding, he has relied on the affidavits of Sri Badan Singh and Sri Nanak Chandra in which it has been said that no election of the Appellant''s committee was held. An affidavit of the Principal of the institution was also relied on by him. In paragraph 35 of the affidavit, filed in support of the stay application by the Appellants, it has specifically been stated that the same persons, namely, Badan Singh, Nanak Chandra and the Principal of the institution have given affidavits mentioning therein that the election of the Appellants'' committee was held in accordance with law in the institution. These affidavits were filed by the Appellants before the Deputy Director and were part of his record ; but he does not even refer lo these affidavits, which were filed in support of the claim of the Appellants. It is, thus, apparent that same persons have filed affidavits both in favor of the Appellants and the Respondents. If he wanted to rely on the affidavits filed by these persons in favor of the Respondents, it was his duty to consider the affidavits of those very persons filed before him In favor of the Appellants. But that has not been done. He has, thus, passed the order after ignoring the material evidence, which was produced by the Appellants before him.

Sri A. Kumar learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4, has, however, contended that as the Appellants were running the institution and was having its control right from 1986. remand of the case to the Deputy Director will be meaningless, because If he decides on the basis of the actual control, he is bound to decide it in favour of the Appellants. He has, therefore, contended that the Respondents will have no remedy, because remedy u/s 16A(7) of the Act is futile for the reasons given above. It is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel. If the Appellants are in actual control of the institution, the Deputy Director is bound to decide in their favour provided they have held election in accordance with law. The validity of the election is also liable to be decided by the Deputy Director on prima facie basis. The real remedy of the aggrieved person against such an order is before the civil court before which all the issues can be decided on the basis of the evidence, which may be adduced by the parties. In the instant case, both the factions have produced separate list containing the names of different persons as members of the society. Such issues can more appropriately be decided by the civil court.

For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13.04.1995 is set aside. The impugned Order dated 10/13.03.1995, passed by the Deputy Director of Education is quashed. Respondent No. 4 will have the liberty to approach the civil court by filing a civil suit for reprisal of its grievances. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.