Committee of Management of D.A.V. Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of D.A.V. Inter College, Oon, Muzaffarnagar and Rajesh Kumar Mittal claiming to be its Manager have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of School, Muzaffarnagar by which he has decided that the meeting of the Committee of Management called by the President on 16th October, 2005 was valid and the 32 persons enrolled as members of the General Body in the said meeting are entitled to participate in the forthcoming election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. He has further authorised the Principal of Chaudhary Man Singh Government Inter College, Kandela to hold the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution within a period of one month.

It is stated that D.A.V. Inter College, Oon, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the ''Institution'') is recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and receives grant in aid from the State Government. The Institution has its approved Scheme of Administration which provides that the term of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Institution shall be three years though they can continue in office for a period of one more month, but if within this period of three years and one month, newly elected Committee of Management does not take charge then the term of the Committee of Management shall automatically come to an end after three years and one month and the Deputy Director of Education shall nominate a person to look after the affairs of the Committee of Management of the Institution and hold the elections at the earliest.

In the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 21st January, 2003, petitioner No. 2-Rajesh Kumar Mittal was elected as the Manager and respondent No. 3-Jai Deo Singh was elected as the President. This election was approved by the Regional Level Committee by the order dated 3rd December, 2003 and thereafter the signatures of Rajesh Kumar Mittal were also attested as Manager. It is stated that after 11th March, 2004, meetings of the Committee of Management of the Institution could not be held as a dispute had arisen between the Manager and the President of the Committee of Management of the Institution and six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution made a request in writing under Clause 11 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution to the Manager to call a meeting of the Committee of Management for enrollment of new members. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the Manager sent a communication to the President asking him to grant permission for convening the meeting on 26th September, 2004 but the President while granting permission changed the agenda of the meeting. On 26th September, 2004, a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held in the College premises which was presided over by Sat Pal Sharma since the President and Vice-President did not attend the meeting. This meeting was attended by eight members/office bearers out of the 15 members and 40 new members were enrolled as members of the General Body.

The President of the Committee of Management of the Institution also claimed to have held a meeting of the Committee of Management on 22nd August, 2004 in which 32 new members were enrolled as members of the General Body.

The petitioners filed a representation before the District Inspector of Schools against the enrollment of 32 new members and the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 8th June, 2005 that the said meeting convened by the President was invalid since the President could not have convened the meeting on his own.

It is said that subsequently six members moved an application before the District Inspector of Schools under Clause 11(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution for holding a meeting of the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of Schools on 10th October, 2005 granted permission for holding the meeting. Thereafter notice was issued fixing 16th October, 2005 for the holding of the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution.

It is the case of the petitioners that the said meeting held on 16th October, 2005 was attended by 9 out of the 15 members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution, while according to respondent No. 3-Jai Deo Singh, meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 16th October, 2005 in which 6 members of the Committee of Management participated and 32 new members of the General Body were inducted. Both the proceedings of the meeting were submitted before the District Inspector of Schools who issued a notice dated 25th November, 2005 asking the parties to appear with their respective claims.

An order dated 14th February, 2006 was then passed by the District Inspector of Schools holding that the meeting held on 26th September, 2004 by the petitioners in which 40 new members were enrolled was invalid. The District Inspector of Schools further held that the meeting held on 16th October, 2005 presided by respondent No. 3-Jai Deo Singh as President in which 32 new members of the General Body were enrolled was valid.

This order dated 14th February, 2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11278 of 2006 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2006 with the following observation:

In the body of the order passed by the D.I.O.S., the D.I.O.S. has himself recorded that the committee of management held a meeting on 16.10.2005. But the D.I.O.S. has made no further discussion with regard to this meeting held on 16.10.2005 by the management. It has not declared the meeting held by the committee of management on 16.10.2005 either as valid or as invalid. Once the D.I.O.S. was aware that a meeting was held by the committee of management on 16.10.2005, he ought to have returned a finding on the same because from a bare perusal of the scheme of administration, a meeting can be called by 6 members of the committee of management for the purpose of induction of members and other such agenda. The scheme of administration, which has been placed on record, contemplates three situations, in which the meeting may be held under Clause 11(2), Clause 12(1) of the Scheme of Administration also permits a meeting to be held in the absence of the President. So it cannot be said that it is the President alone, who has the power to hold a meeting under the scheme of administration. No such bar can be read into the scheme of administration. To read such a bar in the scheme of administration would not make it unworkable but would also render it undemocratic.

I am of the considered opinion that because the D.I.O.S. failed to return a finding with regard to validity of the meeting held by the committee of management on 16.10.2005 after recording that it is held, renders the order of the D.I.O.S. illegal and arbitrary.

Both Counsels have stated that elections of the committee of management are to be held and announced very soon. In view of the statements made by both parties, I remand the matter back to the D.I.O.S., who will consider the validity of all the meetings held either by the President or by the manager of committee of management afresh after giving both the parties a proper opportunity of hearing and, if possible, the D.I.O.S. will conclude the matter within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the D.I.O.S. is hereby set aside.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools passed a fresh order on 17th August, 2006 declaring that both the meetings held on 16th October, 2005 were not validly held.

This order dated 17th August, 2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 53080 of 2006 and by respondent No. 3-Jai Deo Singh in Writ Petition No. 50571 of 2006. Both these petitions were disposed of by the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2008. Special Appeals were filed by both the parties which were allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter both the writ petitions were disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2009 with the following directions:

It appears that manager and President have enrolled various members of the society and the list to that effect was submitted to the competent authority for decision. The District Inspector of Schools while considering the scheme of enrollment of the members of the society has disputed that the factum as alleged by both the parties regarding holding of meeting on 16.10.2005 cannot be believed and it appears that no meeting was held to that effect. A finding has been recorded that a meeting was held by President and it has been stated that manager and treasurer are not present and a meeting which was held by manager, respondent No. 3 petitioner in that writ petition has stated in their agenda that President and Treasurer are not present, in such circumstances, District Inspector of Schools has held that it is doubtful that any meeting was held ever and the genuineness of the said meeting is in doubt, therefore, rejected the claim of both the parties. Hence, the present petition.

Now, after hearing learned Counsel for parties, it has been agreed between the parties in both the writ petitions that members of the general body has to be decided by the competent authority. Unless and until it is decided no election can be held and after taking a decision, the authority concerned may be directed to hold the election under his supervision.

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, both the writ petitions are being disposed of finally directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the questions of membership of the general body after giving fullest opportunity to the parties and will pass appropriate orders finalizing the list of membership within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order without being influenced by order impugned dated 17.8.2006. It is also made clear that immediately after finalization of the list, election be held within a period of six weeks from the date of finalization of the list of membership under his supervision or any person authorised by him.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 6th May, 2010 holding that the meetings which were convened by the Manager including the meeting held on 26th September, 2004, without the approval of the President were invalid. He has further held that the meetings convened on 16th October, 2005 by the six members with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools and presided by the President was valid and the 32 new members of the General Body enrolled in the said meeting are valid members entitled to participate in the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution.

It is this order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools that has been impugned in the present petition.

In the said order dated 6th May, 2010, the District Inspector of Schools has observed:

For convening an urgent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution under Clause 11(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, written permission of the President is necessary. The Manager alone cannot, under the Scheme of Administration, convene a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The meetings of the Committee of Management of the Institution convened by the Manager without the approval of the President on 26th September, 2004, 10th October, 2004, 15th November, 2004, 27th December, 2004, 28th March, 2005 and 4th July, 2005 are not valid.

Likewise, the meetings called by the President alone on 30th May,2004, 22nd August, 2004, 26th September, 2004, 31st October, 2004, 30th January, 2005, 13th June, 2005 and 9th July, 2005 are against the provisions of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and are not valid.

In this connection, the earlier District Inspector of Schools in his order dated 8th June, 2005 has also held that the meetings called by the President and the Manager are invalid.

Six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution had sent a written registered communication dated 5th October, 2005 to the Manager-Rajesh Kumar Mittal for convening an urgent meeting but it was returned with the endorsement that the addressee refused to take it. Thereafter the said six members after taking permission from the District Inspector of Schools on 10th October, 2005 convened an urgent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 16th October, 2005 which was held in the premises of the Institution under the Chairmanship of the President.

During the hearing, it transpired that the Manager did not hold any urgent meeting in the Institution on 16th October, 2005 and nor had the District Inspector of Schools granted any permission to the Manager to hold such a meeting. In such circumstances, the meeting said to have been held on 16th October, 2005 by the Manager is illegal and consequently the enrollment of new members in the said meeting is also illegal.

The contention of the third party namely Harish Chandra Goel also cannot be accepted.

Under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution it is provided that in case the Committee of Management of the Institution does not accept the enrollment of any member then the same shall be placed before the General Body but no member has made a complaint to the General Body that he was not enrolled by the President.

Thus, the 32 members enrolled by the President in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 16th October, 2005 are valid.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated that it will not be necessary to file a counter affidavit and the writ petition may be decided.

Sri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions:

Clause 11(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution deals with three different situations. The Manager, as and when required, with the approval of the President, can call a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution and if a request is made in writing by six members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution specifically stating what issue has to be taken up in the meeting, an urgent meeting has to be called by the Manager. However, if the Manager or the President do not do so, then six member/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution, with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools, can jointly call a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution. It is, therefore, his submission that in the first situation both the Manager and the President are ready to call a meeting. In the second situation when six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution make a request to the Manager for calling a meeting, the approval of the President is not needed and the Manager has to call a meeting. The third situation will arise when on the request made by six members to the Manager, even the Manager is not ready to call a meeting and in this situation six members with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools can call a meeting.

The President on his own cannot call a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution under any circumstances.

The meeting called for 26th September, 2004 by the Manager on the request made by six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution was valid and so the enrollment of 40 new members in the General Body in the said meeting is also valid.

The President on his own could not have called a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution and consequently the meetings held the meeting held on 22nd August, 2004 was invalid.

The Court in its judgment and order dated 28th April, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 11278 of 2006, while interpreting the provisions of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, held that a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution could be called by the Manager without the approval of the President, but in the impugned order dated 6th May, 2010 the District Inspector of Schools has held that the meeting held on 26th September, 2004 was invalid since it was held without the approval of the President.

The District Inspector of Schools has misread the order dated 8th June, 2005 passed by the earlier District Inspector of Schools since in the said order, there is no finding that the meeting convened by the Manager on 26th September, 2004 is invalid. However, in the impugned order dated 6th May, 2010, the District Inspector of Schools has held that the meeting called by the Manager on 26th September, 2004 was found to be invalid by the District Inspector of Schools in the order dated 8th June, 2005.

It was the specific case of the petitioners before the District Inspector of Schools that in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 16th October, 2005 with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools, 9 out of 15 members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution participated including the petitioner No. 2-Rajesh Kumar Mittal but in the said meeting, the President, Vice-President, Treasurer and three other members did not participate. The Principal of the Institution and some of the employees had filed affidavits before the District Inspector of Schools regarding the holding of this meeting. On the other hand, a claim was set up by the President that in the meeting held on 16th October, 2005, 6 out of 15 members participated and 32 new members were enrolled in the General Body. The District Inspector of Schools without giving any cogent reason concluded that the meeting which was presided by the President on 16th October, 2005 was valid whereas the other meeting in which the Manager claims that 9 out of 15 members had participated was illegal.

The District Inspector of Schools committed an infirmity in holding that since no permission had been obtained by the petitioners/Manager for convening the meeting on 16th October, 2005, the meeting in which the Manager participated, was invalid. It is his submission that it was not the case of the Manager that he had convened the meeting or had obtained any permission from the District Inspector of Schools but it was the meeting for which permission had been taken by the six members from the District Inspector of Schools.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-Jai Deo Singh made the following submissions:

Under Clause 11(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, the Manager, with the approval of the President, can call an urgent meeting and six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution can also make a demand in writing to the Manager for calling an urgent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution in which case the meeting has to be called. However, if this is not done by the President or the Manager, then six members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools can jointly call a meeting of the of the Committee of Management of the Institution. It is, therefore, his submission that the approval of the President is necessary even when a request is made by six members in writing to the Manager for convening a meeting and it cannot be urged that the approval of the President is necessary only when the Manager calls an urgent meeting and not when six members make a demand in writing for convening the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution. It is only when the Manager and the President do not convene a meeting, either on their own or on the request made by six members in writing that six members can, with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools, jointly convene a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution.

In view of the aforesaid, the meeting convened by the Manager on the request made by six members without the approval of the President on 26th September, 2004 is illegal.

On the other hand, the meeting presided by the President on 16th October, 2005 was valid since it was called by six members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools granting approval to the decision taken in this meeting held on 16th October, 2005 in which 32 new members were enrolled in the General Body.

The District Inspector of Schools committed no infirmity in rejecting the claim of the Manager-respondent No. 3 having held the meeting on 16th October, 2005.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to Clause 11(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution which, translated in English, will read as follows:

11(2). The Manager (with the approval of the President), when necessary, can call an urgent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution and on a demand made in writing by six members of the Committee of Management specifically stating the issue to be considered in the meeting, shall certainly call an urgent meeting of the Committee of Management. But, if this is not done by the President or the Manager, then six members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools can jointly call a meeting. Likewise, a meeting of the General Body can be called with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools by 20 members, if on their application the Manager or the President do not do so.

It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid Clause 11(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution that the Manager, when necessary, with the approval of the President, can call an emergent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution and a demand can also be made in writing by six members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution to the Manager for calling an urgent meeting but they have to specify the purpose for which the meeting is to be convened. In this case also, the Manager will convene the meeting with the approval of the President. However, if the Manager and the President do not call a meeting in spite of a request made by six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution, then the six members can jointly call a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution with the prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools. It is not possible to accept the contention of Sri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Manager is not required to take the approval of the President when a request for convening an urgent meeting is made by six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution because the approval of the President is necessary when either the Manager on his desires to call a meeting or when he calls a meeting on a request made by six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution. Such exclusion of the approval of the President is not provided in the said Clause and on the contrary the third situation contemplated in the Clause clinches the issue against the petitioners since it provides that when the Manager or the President do not do so, six members can jointly convene a meeting with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools. This contemplates of a situation when the Manager or the President are not interested in convening the meeting even if a request is made by six members. There would have been no necessity of involving the President if his approval was not necessary. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since in the second situation the Manager has necessarily to call a meeting implies that the approval of the President is not necessary is misconceived. All that it means is that when a demand is made by six members in writing, the Manager has to convene a meeting and it cannot be said that this will imply exclusion of approval of the President.

In such circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools was justified in holding that the meeting held on 26th September, 2004 in which the petitioners claim to have enrolled 40 new members was invalid since there was no approval of the President for holding the meeting for enrollment of new members.

The issue that remains to be decided is about the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 16th October, 2005.

It is the case of respondent No. 3-Jai Deo Singh-President of the Committee of Management of the Institution that six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution had sent a registered letter dated 5th October, 2005 to the Manager for convening a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution but this letter was returned with the endorsement of the Postman that the addressee has refused to accept it. Thereafter, these six members made a request in writing to the District Inspector of Schools for calling a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution and after the permission was granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 10th October, 2005, the urgent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 16th October, 2005 under the Chairmanship of the President in the College premises in which 6 members participated and 32 new members of the General Body were enrolled.

The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the permission granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 10th October, 2005, the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held in the College premises on 16th October, 2005 in which nine members participated.

Thus, both the parties allege that the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 16th October, 2005 in the College premises pursuant to the permission granted by the District Inspector of Schools to the six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution.

What, however, is to be noted is that one meeting was attended by 9 out of the 15 members while the other meeting was attended by six members. The meeting in which nine members took part was attended by the Manager but the President, Vice-President and the Treasurer did not attend the meeting. In the meeting which was attended by six members, the Manager did not participate. Thus, there is an apparent conflict between the Manager and the President.

It needs to be mentioned that the Principal of the Institution and certain employees of the Institution had filed affidavits before the District Inspector of Schools in support of the meeting attended by nine members.

It is also clear that 9 members of the Committee of Management of the Institution are on one side and six members of the Committee of Management of the Institution are on the other side. The claim of the petitioners is that the meeting held on 16th October, 2005 was attended by 9 members including the Manager while the claim of respondent No. 3-Jai Deo Singh is that the meeting was attended by six members including the President. Thus, each party claims to have held two separate meetings, though only one meeting was required to be held pursuant to the permission granted by the District Inspector of Schools. It is this issue that was required to be decided by the District Inspector of Schools.

The District Inspector of Schools, however, in the impugned order, has discarded the claim of the petitioners on the ground that during the course of hearing it transpired that the Manager did not hold any meeting in the Institution on 16th October, 2005 and nor was permission granted to the Manager to hold the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution.

These two reasons given by the District Inspector of Schools for rejecting the claim of the Manager regarding the holding of the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution cannot be accepted.

In the first instance it was not the case of the petitioners before the District Inspector of Schools that permission was sought by the Manager from the District Inspector of Schools to hold the meeting. It was their case that six members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution had sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools and after the permission was given on 10th October, 2005, the meeting was held on 16th October, 2005 in which 9 out of 15 members participated. Secondly, the District Inspector of Schools has not given any reason for not accepting the claim of the Manager that meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 16th October, 2005 as all that has been stated is that such factual position emerged during the course of hearing before the District Inspector of Schools. The affidavits filed before the District Inspector of Schools by the Principal of the Institution as also employees have not been taken into consideration.

This apart, the reason given by the District Inspector of Schools for accepting the claim of respondent No. 3-Jai Deo Singh since no member raised any objection before the General Body of the Society as provided under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, cannot be accepted. The meeting presided by the President in which 32 members were enrolled cannot be said to be valid merely because the members enrolled in the said meeting did not raise any objection before the General Body regarding their enrollment.

The aforesaid facts, therefore, reveal a very peculiar situation. 6 members out of the 15 members of the Committee of Management have not participated in one meeting held on 16th October, 2005 while in the other meeting held on the same date, 9 members have not participated. The District Inspector of Schools should have, therefore, recorded a categorical finding on the basis of the documents produced before him but that has not been done.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, it is not possible to sustain the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. It is, accordingly, set aside. The District Inspector of Schools shall now pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made above.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.