Committee of Management, Shri Ram Janki Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.8.2010. passed by Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi (Annexure-12 to writ petition). Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondents not to interfere in the functioning of Petitioners as Committee of Management of Sri Ram Janki Inter College Sarokhanpur Badlapur, district Jaunpur.

Sri Ram Janki Inter College, Sarokhanpur, Badlapur is a recognised and aided educational institution governed under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 and U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. The institution is run by temporary approved Scheme of Administration framed under the Act. Same has been approved by Deputy Director of Education on 8.12.1962. Subsequently, after enforcement of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1981, amendments were directed under the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi vide letter dated 25th January, 1985. A copy of same has been annexed as Annexure-2 to writ petition. Under the Scheme of Administration, the institution was to be managed by a Committee of Management for a term of three years. In the year 2002, a proceeding was initiated for amending the Scheme of Administration and the term of Committee of Management in place of three years, was made five years. All papers pertaining to such amendments were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools to be forwarded to the Joint Director of Education, Varanasi for its approval and same has been approved by order dated 30.7.2002. Consequence there of it will be presumed that the Scheme of Administration is to be amended and term of Committee of Management has been extended to be five years. According to Scheme of Administration, elections were held on 2.10.2004 in which the Committee of Management as Surendra Mani Dubey as President. Gyananand Shukla, Petitioner No. 2 as Manager were elected. Same was approved by the Regional Level Committee vide its order dated 10.11.2004. There was no challenge to the order so there was no dispute regarding the election dated 2.10.2004. Fresh elections were due in the year 2009 and the meeting of Committee of Management was held on 2.10.2009 and decision was taken to hold fresh election. The District Inspector of Schools accorded permission for publication of the election schedule and it was published in the newspaper on the schedule date, election was held on 25.10.2009 and papers were sent to District Inspector of Schools for necessary action.

According to Petitioners, no other election has been held but a fabricated election alleged to be held in which Committee of Management with Shashidhar Tripathi as President and Grija Shanker Pathak as Manager have been elected. In such circumstances, papers were forwarded to the Regional Level Committee for passing appropriate orders. The Regional Level Committee vide its order dated 30.8.2010 has discarded both the election and directed that the Prabandh Sanchalak will be appointed and fresh election will be held. The said order is under challenge by the Petitioners on the ground that the impugned decision by the Joint Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools is not an order passed by Regional Level Committee being fact that Deputy Director of Education did not even take part in hearing because as the order bear his signature, therefore, it can easily be treated that it is not a decision in consonance of the Government order treating the order of Regional Level Committee. Entire proceedings set up by Girja Shankar Pathak are wholly fabricated proceeding, even otherwise, Girja Shanker Pathak has no authority to vitiate the whole election proceeding. Their exists no justification by Respondents authorities for holding that the Committee of Management elected in the year 2004 have become time barred in November, 2007.

Sri Khare learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners submits the Scheme of Administration was amended by the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 20th July, 2002 and in 2004 election was held and Petitioners'' Committee of Management, their signatures were attested, therefore, it is clear that term of Committee of Management is five years and claim of Petitioners'' Committee of Management cannot be rejected on the ground holding therein that as term of Committee of Management is only for three years, therefore, in view of settled principle of law, election cannot be held under the supervision of the Petitioners'' Committee of Management treating term as five years. According to Section 16A (5), requirement is only to get approval by the competent authority in the Scheme of Administration, if any, and if it is approved then it cannot be held or argued that amendment in the Scheme of Administration approved by 20th July, 2002 is not in consonance of the Act. Further, admittedly Scheme was amended and was approved by the Joint Director of Education by order dated 20th July, 2002 and nobody has raised any objection and in 2004 election was held and Petitioner''s Committee of Management was elected and signatures were attested by competent authority, therefore, in 2009 election cannot be held invalid by Respondents on the ground that scheme of Administration was not properly amended extending the term from three years to five years. Therefore, finding recorded to this effect that documents are not available regarding initiating a proceeding for the purpose of amendment, is not correct. Further, finding recorded by Respondents is not sustainable in law in view of fact that, in case, after approval of the amendment, by the Joint Director of Education if it is annexed to the Scheme of Administration and it has not been incorporated in the place where it should have been done, an inference cannot be drawn that no amendment has been made according to law.

Sri Khare has placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and has placed reliance upon paras 3 and 9 of the said judgment. The same are being quoted below:

Challenging the judgment and order of the Hon''ble single Judge, learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the power to make amendments in the Scheme of Administration has been conferred u/s 16A (5) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1921). Such amendments are approved by the Director of Education. The Petitioner''s Committee of Management which was elected in the year 2005 had proposed amendments in the scheme of administration, whereby the term of the elected Committee of Management has been changed from 3 years to 5 years during subsistence to its 3 years term. The amendments have in fact been approved during the same period. However, the Regional Joint Director of Education has incorporated a totally unwarranted condition in the order of approval that such amendment in the Scheme of Administration [qua extension of the term) would take effect only in respect of the Committee of Management, which is elected subsequent to the approval of the amendments. It is contended that the letter of the Director of Education, U. P. at Allahabad dated 4th August, 2003 which provided that such amendments would take effect only in respect of the Committee of Management, which is elected subsequent to the date of approval of the amendments, is in excess to his statutory powers u/s 16A (5). It is submitted that the Director of Education has no authority under the provisions of the Act, 1921, to control the manner in which the amendments are to take effect.

Last undisputed elections of the Committee of Management of the institution are stated to have taken place on 7th September, 2005. Papers pertaining to the said elections were transmitted to the Regional Level Committee, constituted under the Government order dated 19th December, 2000 of which the Regional Joint Director of Education is the Chairman. The Regional Level Committee approved the elections vide its decision dated 20th December, 2005. As a consequence thereto, the District Inspector of Schools also attested the signatures of Sunil Kumar as the lawful Manager of the Committee of Management. Under Clause 8 of the approved Scheme of Administration, as was existing on the date of the aforesaid elections of the year 2005, the term of the elected office bearers was provided as three years with a condition that for grace period of one month, the office bearers of the Committee of Management shall continue to hold the office and in case the newly elected Committee of Management does not take over charge with the aforesaid period of three years and one month, it shall be deemed to have become time barred and in such a circumstance a Tadarth Samiti shall be appointed by the Arya Paritinidhi Sabha for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management within six months.

On the other hand, Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has brought to the notice of the Court the provisions of Section 16A (5), which is being reproduced below:

16A (5) The Scheme of Administration of very institution shall be subject to the approval of the Director and no amendment to or change in the Scheme of Administration shall be made at any time without the prior approval of the Director:

Provided that where the Management of an institution is aggrieved by an order of the Director refusing to approve an amendment or change in the Scheme of Administration, the State Government, on the representation of the Management, may, if it is satisfied that the proposed amendment or change in the Scheme of Administration is in the interest of the institution, order the Director to approve the same, and thereupon the Director shall act accordingly.

Placing reliance upon the aforesaid provision, learned Counsel for Respondents submits that requirement is prior approval, meaning thereby, in case. Scheme of Administration is to be amended, a proposal to that effect be sent to competent authority for getting an approval for amendment and if it is approved then proper amendment be made and approval to that effect has to be obtained by the competent authority. Unless and until prior approval is done, requirement of Section 16A (5) is not complete and if any amendment is made under the Scheme of Administration that cannot be said to be in consonance of the Act.

Regional Level Committee has recorded a finding to this effect after verification of relevant record that there was no proposal and amendment of extension of period of term from three years to five years has never been approved before making amendment. Learned Counsel for Respondents has further submitted before this Court that the order dated 20th July, 2002 is a letter of District Inspector of Schools giving approval for amending Scheme of Administration from three years to five years. It is not an order of approving amendment strictly in accordance with the Act. In such circumstances, the Regional Level Committee has held that amendment made is not in consonance of the Act, therefore, it will be treated that term of Committee of Management is three years and therefore, Petitioners were not entitled or having any authority to hold the election in 2009 when the term of Committee of Management has been expired. Further, it is clear that any amendment in the Scheme of Administration cannot be made unless and until it is approved by the competent authority which is a necessary requirement, therefore, Respondent No. 2 has held to this effect that amendment has not been made strictly in accordance with law, as such, in case term has expired, according to Scheme of Administration, the Committee of Management after expiry of aforesaid period cannot held any election under their supervision.

Learned Counsel for Respondents has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehra Inter College and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Education and Others, . and has placed reliance upon para 13 of the said judgment. The same is being quoted below:

In Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Thekma, Jijauli, District Azamgarh v. Deputy Director of Education, VIIth Region, Gorakhpur, 1982 UPLBEC 38, the Division Bench held that the question as to who was in control of the Management is linked with the decision about the validity of the election pleaded by the rival parties, and for this purpose the Deputy Director of Education is required to examine the evidence of the parties and to give a finding on the same. In Committee of Management, Gandhi ''Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. Regional Deputy Director of Education and Ors. 1996 ACJ 226 , another Division Bench held that the provisions contained u/s 16A (7) itself implies that for deciding the question of actual control, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, shall have regard to various circumstances including the ''Scheme of Administration. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 16A in the explanation, it is made clear and further it has been held that he has to have regard to the relevant circumstances. While deciding as to who is in actual control, the Regional Deputy Director of Education will have to find the nature of such control and the background in which such control was claimed by rival factions and though the exclusive enquiry is in potentiality regarding the validity of the election, still consideration of the nature of the election held and a background may be taken into consideration by the Deputy Director for deciding the controversy, undoubtedly the final verdict regarding the validity of the Committee of Management and its institution has to be pronounced by a Competent Court. The Court relied upon a Full Bench decision in Buddhan Singh and Another Vs. Nabi Bux and Another, which interpreted the expression ''held'' used in Section 9 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, to mean lawfully held, and that a rank trespasser was not held entitled to get the benefit of Section 9 of the Act. Any other interpretation may embolden, the persons completely devoid of any claim whatsoever, to set up a claim on the basis of a mere control, whatsoever be the nature.

Further submission has been made that now Regional Level Committee has directed that fresh election will be held within a period of four months by valid members and till that date, authorised Controller will manage the affairs of the institution. In such circumstances, now fresh election will be held and proper elected Committee of Management will manage the affairs.

I have considered the submissions of parties and have perused the record. From the record it is clear that last election was held in 2004 in which Petitioners'' Committee of Management was elected and their signatures have been attested. From perusal of provision of Scheme of Administration, it is clear that, in case, any amendment is proposed, it will be totally in consonance of the provision of the Intermediate Education Act and as well as prior approval of the competent authority, meaning thereby the Joint Director of Education. From the order dated 20th July, 2002, it appears that Petitioners'' Committee of Management wanted to make an amendment in Clause 4 regarding term of Committee of Management and send proposal to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools on 18.7.2002 send it to the Joint Director of Education. Joint Director of Education accepting the said proposal and has given his consent for making amendment extending term from three years to five years In consonance of the provision of Section 16A (5) of the Act. Section 16A (5) provides that prior approval of the competent authority before making amendment under the Scheme of Administration is necessary. If no prior permission is granted amendment itself will be invalid and illegal. From the order passed by the Regional Level Committee it does not appear that any document to that effect was submitted by Petitioner subsequent to the approval or proposal dated 20th July, 2002. After permission, requirement is that a proposal has to be prepared and it has to be placed before the house and by voting it has to be passed and then proceeding for amending Scheme of Administration with all relevant records has to be forwarded to the Joint Director of Education for the purpose of approval. It is clear from the record that any such document was ever filed before the competent authority. Therefore, it cannot be treated that order dated 20th July, 2002 is an order of extending the term of Committee of Management from three years to five years. In such circumstances, Regional Level Committee has held that as earlier term of Committee of Management has already expired in 2007 in view of election of 2004, therefore, Petitioner''s Committee of Management cannot hold the election under his supervision and has rightly rejected claim of both the parties and has directed to hold election under their supervision within a specific period.

Contention of Mr. Khare is not acceptable to the Court in view of fact that no document has been brought to the notice of the Court regarding any proceeding initiated after the order dated 20th July, 2002. Further, it has to be seen that in case any amendment was made according to Petitioner that was to be incorporated in the Scheme of Administration but admittedly, it has not been incorporated at relevant place in the Scheme of Administration by which term from three years to five years have been extended. Petitioners'' case is that it was annexed with the Scheme of Administration. Though, from the finding recorded by the Regional Level Committee it does not appear that any such document was ever filed by Petitioners with the proceeding of election.

In view of aforesaid fact, I see no justification to interfere in view of fact that now election will be held under supervision of Authorised Controller within a period of four months. It is made clear that as directed by the order dated 30.8.2010, Respondents will hold the election of the Committee of Management in compliance of the said order.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.