Committee of Management, S.G.M. Inter College and Another vs Deputy Director of Education and Others

S.P. Srivastava, J.—A recognised Intermediate College which is an Institution as contemplated u/s 2(b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 is being run in the name and style of ''S.G.M. Intermediate College'' in Khairgarh, District Firozabad. This ''Institution'' receives various grants-in-aid from the State and falls within the purview of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate College (Payment) of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971). By an order dated 25-1-94 the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, Respondent No. 2 granted recognition for running and managing the ''Institution'' to a Committee of Management with Sri Daya Shanker Gupta as its Manager and Virendra Kumar Tiwari as its President. Recognising this Committee of Management, the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of Daya Shanker Gupta as the duly elected Manager.

Feeling aggrieved, Sri A.K. Gupta claiming himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management as well as the Committee of Management throagh Sri A.K. Gupta its alleged Manager have approached this Court seeking the quashing of the impugned order dated 25-1-94 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad and further claiming a direction requiring the Respondents viz the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, the Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad and the Committee of Management of S.G.M. Intermediate College through its Manager Sri Daya Shanker Gupta not to interfere in the functioning of the Petitioners as the Committee of Management of S.G.M. Inter College, Khairgarh District Firozabad and further requiring the Committee of Management with Sri Daya Shanker Gupta as its Manager not to interfere in the discharge of any functions by the Petitioner as the Management of the said ''Institution'' on the basis of the impugned order dated 25-1-94.

The Respondent No. 4 has put in appearance through Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, Advocate and has filed a counter -- affidavit in opposition to the writ petition. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioners in reply thereto.

I have heard Sri Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Respondent-authotities and Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned counsel representing the Respondent No. 4 I have also perused the record.

The case of the Petitioners, In brief, shorn of details, lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners'' claim that in a fresh election held on 12-12-93 the Committee of Management with Sri A. K. Gupta as its Manager was elected and copies of the proceedings of the meeting of the General Body of the Society held on 12-12-93 were sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad along with a letter bringing to his notice the fact that the election had been held and requesting that the newly elected Committee of Management with Sri A. K. Gupta as its Manager be recognised and approved. The application along with which the proceedings of the meeting of the general body dated 12-12-93 had been sent is dated 13-12-93 and was sent by Ram Gopal Gupta who claimed to have been elected as the President of the Committee of Management. The petitioners'' claim that since mo orders were passed by the District Imspeetor of Schools they sent a reminder on 20-12-93. This reminder is claimed to have been sent by Sri A. K. Gupta. It is further asserted that on 22-1-94 Sri A. G. Gupta weat to the once of the District Inspector of Schools to make enquiries in the matter and on that date he was served with a notice dated 18-1-94 issued by the District Inspecter of Schools requiring te submit various documents la original fixing 22-1-94 as the date of hearing to consider the validity of the election. The aforesaid letter is addressed to Daya Shanker Gupta as well as Sri A. K. Gupta. In. this letter the District Inspector of Schools has noticed that he had received, information regarding the election of different Committees of Management held on 20-12-93 and 15-12-93. The petitioners'' claim that since the time was short they applied for one weeks'' time to enable them to file the documents which application was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 22-1-94. It is further asserted that on 24-1-94 the Petitioners submitted the documents pertaining to the election proceedings relied upon by them in support of their claim. It is further asserted that the Petitioners did not have any proper notice of the date i.e. 22-1-94 which had been fixed by the District Inspector of Schools and violating the principle of natural justice and further without affording the Petitioners any proper opportunity of hearing the impugned order had been passed on 25-1-94. The Petitioners have asserted that the impugned order does not give any reasons and totally ignores the voluminous documentary evidence submitted by them along with the convering letter dated 24-1-94. It is further claimed that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction, as, in the circumstances of the present case there being a dispute between rival Committees of Management, the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction or authority to recognise either of the Committee of Management and was bound to make a reference to the Deputy Director of Education for adjudication u/s 16A(7) of the Intermediate- Education Act.

In the present case the Petitioners have relied upon a ''Scheme of Administration'' framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act which stands duly approved by the Director and have annexed a true copy of the same as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the aforesaid ''Scheme of Administration'' indicates that the Society which runs and manages the ''institution'' is the ''Krishak Shiksha Pracharini Sabha, Khairgarh, Mainpuri which is a registered Society. However, a perusal of the true copy of the proceedings relating to election dated 12-12-93 which was sent by Ram Gopal along with his letter dated 13-12-92 to which a reference has been made above it is apparent that the election relied upon by the Petitioners were held in the meeting of the general body of Sri Mathur Vaishya Shiksha Pracharini Sabha, Khairgarh, the name of which Society does not find mention in the duly approved ''Scheme of Administration'' in accordance whereof the ''institution'' in question is being run and managed.

This Court in its decision in the case of The Committee of Management, Indira Gandhi Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools 1992 ACJ 505, had pointed out that sub-section (7) of section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act provides that whenever there is dispute with respect to the management of an educational institution persons found by Regional Deputy Director of Education to be in actual control of its affairs may be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such an institution, it was observed that the Committee of Management - is an independent legal entity and that in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 16-A of the Act only a Committee of Management constituted in accordance with the ''Scheme of Administration'' has the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. It was further indicated that a dispute with regard to management of the institution arises when there is claim and counter-claim between different sets of persons who constitute rival managing committees about their right to manage the instiution and unless there are two rival Committees of Management claiming the right to manage the institution there cannot be a dispute with respect to the Management of the Institution which requires adjudication by the Deputy Director of Education. It was emphasised by this Court in the aforesaid decision that existence of two rival Committees of Management is as such a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (7) of section 16-A of the Act.

The question which, therefore, arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the claim which can give rise to a dispute envisaged u/s 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act can be deemed to include the claim of a Committee of Management of a Society other then that which is referred to in the approved ''Scheme of Administration'' or such claim ought to remain confined to the claims of rival Committees of Management of the same Society which is specifically mentioned in the ''Scheme of Administration'' of the institution duly approved by the Director of Education.

The provisions contained in section 16-A of the intermediate Education Act stipulate that there shall be a ''Scheme of Administration'' for every institution which shall, amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee, of Management vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. Section 16-CC of the Act provides that ''Scheme of Administration'' in relation to any institution shall not be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the third schedule. Apart from other matters prescribed in the third schedule, it is laid down that the ''Scheme of Administration'' shall provide for the procedure for constituting the Committee of Management by periodical ''elections''.

It may further be noticed that the provisions contained in section 16(5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act make it mandatory to get the ''Scheme of Administration'' approved by the Director. Thus, duly approved ''Scheme of Administration'' framed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 16(5), 16-A, 16-CC and the provisions contained in the third schedule appended to the Act assumes a statutory character laying down the procedural safeguards for running the affairs of an educational ''Institution'' in accordance with the law for maintaining and ensuring an atmosphere conducive to the development of the education which is always the object that institution receiving the grants-in-aid from the State is supposed to serve. The stipulations contained in the duly approved ''Scheme of Administration'' create rights and impose liabilities on the Society and its members which Society is recognised by the State as th e Society running and managing the institution. It is for this purpose that the name of the Society is specifically mentioned, in the -Scheme of Administration'' contemplated under the U, P. intermediate Education Act.

In such a situation, once the identity of the Society is expressly disclosed in the ''Scheme of Administration'' which stands duly approved by the competent authority exercising its jurisdiction envisaged under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, in that case, it is not open to the District Inspector of Schools to entertain any claim by any Committee of Management of a Society other than that which is expressly mentioned in the approved ''Scheme of Administration, and if any such rival claim assertaing a right to manage the ''institution'' is raised, that claim has to be ignored so long as the name of the Society mentioned in the approved ''Scheme of Adminitration'' is not altered or- changed in accordance with any order, judgment or decree passed by any competent authority or Court of competent jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools is quite limited and is not final as it is subject to the result of the judgment, order or direction of the civil Court but in the absence of any such order, direction or judgment, the District Inspecter of Schools is bound to confine the zone of consideration of the claims to those which arise within the Society mentioned in the ''Scheme of Administration'' as the Society recognised by the State as the Society running and managing the institution. There, however, may be a case where on account of fraud, forgery or mis-representation the name of the Society mentioned in the ''Scheme of Administration'' is altered subsequent to the approval of the Director. In such cases the matter has to be decided by the competent authority which had approved the ''Scheme of Administration'' exercising the statutory jurisdiction provided under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the District Inspector of Schools in such a case has to abide by the decision of such an authority.

It may further be noticed that this Court in its decision in the case of Committee of Management of Hindu Inter College, Kosi Kalan v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and others decided by a Division Bench reported in 1988 UP LB EC 732 had indicated that section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act is complete Code by itself so far as the constitution of the Committee of Management of recognised institutions and the disputes pertaining to the management of the ''Institution'' are concerned. Noticing in that decision that the said section begins with a non-obstante clause saying ''notwithstanding anything in any law, document or decree or order of a Court or other instrument ''...'' this Court further pointed out that the aforesaid section provided that there shall be a ''Scheme of t Administration'' for every institution which shall provide amongst other matters, for the constitution for a Committee of Management vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. The ''Scheme of Administration has to be approved by the Director of Education. This Court emphasised that the aforesaid provision obligates that every recognised institution shall manage its affairs in accordance with that scheme. It was further indicated that the power of the Registrar or the Prescribed Authority? under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act to determine disputes in "respect of the election of the office bearers of the Society, as distinct from the managing Committee of the Institution run by that Society, operates in an altogether different field from that with which the Regional Deputy Director of Education is concerned. It was further pointed out that two enactments, namely the Intermediate Education Act and the Societies Registration Act, operate in distinct fields and there is no overlapping between the two.

It may further be noticed that considering the implications arising under the provisions of section 16-A of sub-section (7) thereof, it was observed in the decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management of Sri Maheshwari Inter College v. State of U.P. 1994 (1) UP LB EC 6:-!, that so far as the District Inspector of School and the Deputy Director of Education are concerned the Society for the purposes of the election of the Committee of Management for the School or College recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act has to be taken to be that one which is mentioned in the approved ''Scheme of Administration'' unless the Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise.

In the circumstances, since according to the Petitioners themselves, as is evident from the perusal of the minutes of the proceedings of the general body dated 12-12-93 true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, it was the meeting of the general body of Sri Mathur Vaishya Shiksha Pracharini Sabha, Khairgarh, district Firozabad which is a Society other than that which is mentioned in the duly approved ''Scheme of Administration'' of the institution in question, the dispute raised by the Petitioner could not be deemed to have given rise to a dispute envisaged u/s 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act so as to necesitete a reference to the Deputy Director of Education for abjudication. More so, when according to the Petitioners themselves the name of the Society mentioned in the ''Scheme of Administration'' for the institution referred to hereinbefore still continues to be that of Krishak Shiksfea Pracharini Sabha, Khairgarh, Mainpuri.

As pointed out by this Court in its decision in the case of Committee of Management Vaidi Higher Secondary School v. District Inspector of Schools 1993 (2) UP LB EC 934, the Inspector of Schools has to perform various adiministrative functions of statutory character in collaboration with the Management of the High School OF later-mediate Colleges as contemplated under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act as well as under the U.P. High School and Inter mediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. These duties cannot be discharged by the District Inspector of Schools unless he is in a position to find out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the Committee of Management. This Court had further pointed out that the term "management'' as defined in Section 2(d) of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 in relation to any ''Institution'' includes, the Manager or other person vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. In'' the circumstances, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools stand vested with sufficient jurisdiction for the related purpose as indicated above to satisfy himself as to who according to him is validly continuing as a Manager or representative of the Committee of Management. The jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools exercised in the aforesaid circumstances is quite limited and is not final as it is subject to the result of any judgment, order or direction of the civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

There is no such provision in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or the Regulations framed thereunder or the provisions contained in the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 referred to hereinbefore expressly providing that while passing an or er recognising a Committee of Management exercising the aforesaid jurisdiction the District Inspector of Schools must afford an opportunity of hearing to the rival Committees of Management. If the Statute is silent in the matter regarding, providing an opportunity of hearing in such a proceeding the conclusion is inevitable that the character of the proceeding is purely administrative However, since the administrative action indicated hereinbefore entails civil consequence the procedure to be applied as to be just and fair and the District Inspector of Schools should ensure fair play in action.

The learned counsel for the Petitioners has urged that in such circumstances the impugned order deserves to be quashed as the Petitioners had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing of the impugned order. In this connection it may be noticed that as pointed out by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, , that where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of, natural justice not because it approves the non-observance of natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs. In the present case taking into consideration the own case of the Petitioners and the implications arising under the statutory provisions and the stipulations made in the duly approved ''Scheme of Administration'' to which a reference has already been made hereinbefore, there could be no possibility or occasion for any controvertial conclusion and in the absence of any right or locus-standi in the matter the Petitioners cannot be heard to raise a grievance regarding violation of the principles of natural justice as the dispute raised by them was liable to be ignored altogether in the proceedings giving rise to the impugned order. If the matter is viewed from this angle, that being the only view, without any hesitation, I find no difficulty whatever in rejecting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this regard.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed much reliance on an opinion of Sri Ram Ji Singh, Senior Prosecuting Officer dated 10-11-93 which was submitted before the Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits U.P. Lucknow in response to his request to which a reference has been made in the opinion, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit filed in the writ petition. It has been asserted that the Deputy Registrar Firm Societies and Chits U.P. Lucknow had submitted the aforesaid opinion before the Registrar Firm Societies and Chits who had approved of the said opinion on 29-1-94. It has been pointed out that in the opinion submitted by the Chief Prosecuting officer doubts had been raised about the validity of the recording of the name of the Society as Krishak Shiksha Pracharini Sabha, Khairgarh, Mainpuri. In this connection suffice to say that the aforesaid opinion of the Chief Prosecuting Officer has absolutely no bearing on the controversy raised in the present writ -petition. As has already been indicated "hereinbefore the proceedings under the Societies Registrartion Act and the proceedings under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 with which we are concerned in this case are quite distinct and separate without there being any overlapping. ID the circumstances the Petitioners cannot derive any advantage out of the opinion of the Chief Prosecuting Officer referred to hereinbefore . which, as is evident from the record, has not even been acted upon by the authorities under the Societies Registration Act as no order has been passed on its basis so far which can have the effect of nullifying the finality of the order passed in the proceedings under the Socieities Registration Act whereunder renewal of the certificate of registration had been granted in favour of Krishak Shiksha Pracharini Sabha, Khairgarh, Mainpuri which Society has been mentioned as the Society running and managing the institution in the duly approved ''Scheme of Administration''.

In view of my conclusion indicated hereinbefore I do not find any justifiable ground for interfering in the impugned order at the instance of the Petitioners while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.