Committee of Management, Town Inter College Mohamodabad Gohna vs District Inspector of Schools and Others

This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7-1-1994 in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 2843 of 1993.

We have heard learned Counsel; for the parties and perused the record.

The writ petition has bees filed by the Appellant against order dated 12-7-93 by which the District Inspector of Schools, Mau had recognised the Committee of Management elected on 25-5-93 with Chandra Bail Brahmachari at Manager and Ram Swaroop Paadey at President. By the same order the District Inspector of Schools refused to recognise the committee of management of which Haji Mohammad Yasin claimed to be the Manager and which was allegedly on 26-5-93. The District Inspector of Schools had recorded a finding that there was no real dispute u/s 16-A(7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and bench it was not necessary to send the matter to the Deputy Director of Education. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment and quashed the order of the District Inspector of Spools dated 12-7-93 and directed him to refer the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education u/s 16-A(7) Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed in this Court.

The contention of the learned Counsel for Appellant Shri R.N. Singh was that the committee of Management of which Chandra Bali Brahma-chart was the Manger had been validly elected and them was no genuine dippers. His contention was that earlier also the same composites of management had been elected and Chandra Bali Brahmachari has been throughout recognised as the Manager and his signature has been attested.

On the other hand the contention of learned Counsel for Respondent was that there was a genuine dispute and hence the matter should have been referred to the Deputy Director of Education u/s 16 A(1). The legal position is that if the terra of the reunites of ''ravage Kent of three years and one month has no expired the same Committee of Management has to hold the election, but if the said term has expired then the authorised controller appointed by the Deputy Director of Education has to hold the election. The contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent 3 is that the term of the committee of management of which Chandra Bali Brahmachari was the Manage,'' has not expired hence the same committee of management had to hold the election and hence the District Inspector of Schools has rightly recognised the election held on 25-5-93 with Chandra Bali Brahmachari as manager. In these circumstances we are of the view that the District inspector of Schools had rightly held that the alleged election of 26-5-93 in which Haji Mohammad Yawl claimed to have been elected was not a genuine election. Thus we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge''s order dated 7-1-94 is not correct in law and hat to be set aside. As indicated above, there was no real dispute within the meaning of Section 16-A(7) of the Act. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that no opportunity of hearing was given by the District Inspector of Schools before passing the order dated 12-7-93. In our opinion this argument is not very relevant as there is no basis for contending that Haji Mohammad Yasin had been elected as Manager. As we have already pointed, in the earlier election the committee of management of which Chandra Ball Brahmachari was manger had been elected as Manager and the (sic) had not expired and hence the same committee of management had to hold the election. Hence the fact that Opportunity of hearing wan not given to Haji Mohammad Yasin is not very relevant. We have heard learned Counsel for Haji Mohammad Yasin and we find that has no case whatsoever for the reasons already indicated above.

For the reasons Indicated above, this special appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7-1-94 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.