Sardar Singh vs Dy.Director of Education,Meerut and Others

D. K. Seth, J.—By an order dated 11111992 passed in Writ petition No. 3873 of 1991, the order dated 2811991 by which the District Inspector of Schools refused to recognise the election held on 2381989, was set aside and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide the controversy within three months. In the said order it was recorded that Sri S. C. Budhwar learned counsel, had informed the court that an election had taken place in December, 1991 and one Sri Mahencra Singh is functioning as Manager. The said election was held on 25th December, 1991, which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3890 of 1992. It was further observed that if upon deciding it is found by the District Inspector of Schools that the election held on 2381989 is valid then the election held on December 1991 is also valid. Pursuant to the said directions contained in the said Order dated llth November, 1992 passed by this Court the District Inspector of Schools had decided the controversy, wherein he found that the election dated 23rd August, 1989 and the election held on 25th December, 1991 were not to be recognised on the basis of affidavit of Kartar Singh, the Election Officer, who informed that he did not hold any election. By Order dated 27th March, 1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools pursuant to the order dated 1I111?92 the order dated 30121991 recognising the elections held on 25121991 was set aside. It was further observed that the Deputy Director of Education may appoint Authorised Controller for getting the election of the Committee of Management conducted at the earliest. English translation of the said order, as furnished in the written argument, of the said order dated 2731993, filed as Annexure4 to the writ petition, appears to have been passed after thorough discussion. Thereafter by an order dated 3064993 Sri Suraj Pal Sharma, was appointed as Authorised Controller of the said institution, who took over charge on 1571993, which is the admitted position. The order dated 11111992 passed in Writ petition No. 3873 of 1991 governed Writ Petition No. 3890 of 1992 by reason of the order passed of the same date in the said writ petition. By an order dated 1181994 passed in Writ Petition No. 24273 of 1994, in which the order dated 1151994 and the order dated 2761994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, under which the respondents No. 4 and 5 were restrained from functioning as the Committee of Management of the institution, were challenged and the controversy was directed to be decided by the Deputy

Director of Education, as to whether any election had taken place on 2571993. In the meantime admittedly there was no Committee of management till 27 31933 in respect of the said institution as has been held in the said order dated 2731993, filed as Annexure4 to the writ petition. This order has not been challenged nor correctness of the situation, has been disputed by either of the parties

It alleged that election of the Committee of Management had taken place on 25,1993, which was the subjectmatter in the order dated li81994 passed in Writ Petition No, 24273 of 1994. The said order specifically directed the Deputy Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut, himself to decide the tame after giving opportunity to the contending parties. Upon quashing the said impugned order dated 1151994 to record finding as to whether election of the Committee of Management could have been held on 25M993 or was held. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was felt necessary to go into the said question in the said case despite decision laying down the scope and ambit of Section 16A (7) of the IL P. Intermediate Education Act, which did not apply in the present case, according to Sri Avun Tandon since there was no rival Committee of Managements lodging any claim. Be that as it may, the said order has been accepted and has not been challenged by either of the parties. Pursuent to the said order the Deputy Director of Education had decided the question in terms of the said order dated 1181994 by order dated 31121994, filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, very ably assisted by Sri S. P. Shukla, submits that the order of Deputy Director of Education, is wholly perverse and has not been infact, passed in terms and spirit of the order dated 1181994. He has, in fact, not dealt with the question, as to whether any election could have been held on 2571993, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has drawn my attention to the relevant facts by referring to various annexures filed along with the writ petition, which will be referred to at the time of discussion of the matter, hereinafter.

Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, on the other hand vehmentally argued that the said order can not be interfered with because of the ratio decidandi in the case of Scheoraj Singh v. Deputy Director of Education, arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 1806667 of 1993 decided by the Apex Court, that such matter should be left with the education authorities and the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with it. He further contends that one Sri Kartar Singh, who was appointed as Election Officer on 1331991 and that his appointment has never been set aside or recalled. Since the said Kartar Singh, by affidavit, which has been mentioned in the order dated 2731993, informed that he had never held election afresh, his appointment continued and his right to hold election cannot be superseded even by the subsequent developments or the order passed in this matter. According to him, the said Kartar Singh can held election after obtaining approval from the District Inspector of Schools. Because of such approval the election held by him, has assumed the character of regular election held by the Election Officer and, therefore, cannot be questioned. According to the Scheme of Administration, election is to be held by the Presiding Officer, namely, the Election Officer, appointed being Sri Kartar Singh and not by the Authorised Controller. It is the District Inspector of Schools, who appointed the Presiding Officer. The approval given by the District Inspector of Schools amounts to giving appointment or by implication he has concurred with the functioning of Sri Kartar Singh, as the Presiding Officer and had ratified the order dated 1331991. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the election held by Sri Kartar Singh, and that has been so found rightly by the Deputy Director of Education in the impugned order dated 31121994, filed as Annexure 25 to the writ petition.

After having heard the rival contentions the admitted position appears that by order dated 2731993 it was found that two earlier elections were held to be invalid or nonrecognizable and that there was no Committee of Management between the interengdum period and fresh election was to be held. It is also admitted position that by order dated 2731993 the District Inspector of Schools had observed that election should be held and the Deputy Director of Education may appoint Authorised Controller for holding such election. The Authorised Controller was appointed after the said order dated 2731993 by an order dated 3061993, which is Annexure S to the Writ petition. Admittedly, the Authorised Controller had taken over the charge on 11571993, which fact has also not been disputed by either of the parties. Admittedly, no steps were taken for holding election or for appointment of the Presiding Officer by the Authorised Controller. Admittedly, Sri Kartar Singh on the alleged strength of the order dated 1331991 appointing him as Presiding Officer, for holding election, had sought approval of the District Inspector of Schools, for holding election by letter dated 1061993. The same was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by an endorsement on the said letter, which has been filed as Annexure DA 5 to the counteraffidavit, on 1461993. Annexure CA 5A to the counteraffidavit is the Election Schedule alleged to have been published in the newspaper. No date as to when the said election schedule was published in the newspaper, has been either specified in the said annexure or in the counteraffidavit. From the said Election schedule it appears that different stages for holding election were said to be held on the dates specified against each items in the said Schedule beginning from 1371993 and ending on 2571993.

Thus it appears that the said election had taken place under the supervision of Sri Kartat Singh with the approval of District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, even before the appointment of the Authorised Controller. The Authorised Controller was appointed on 3061993, whereas approval was obtained by letter dated 1061993 and approval was given on 1491993. The Authorised Controller took over charge en 1571993, whereas the Election Schedule purported to have started from 1371993.

Sri Kartar Singh was appointed for holding election by an order dated 1331991. One election was alleged to have been held on 25121991 which has been found to be void and nonest. Whatever may be the position it was the election which was to be held in 1991 for which Sri Kartar Singh was authorised. The authorisation was for holding election of the Committee of Management, which has relevance with the dates when such election was to be held. Ones appointed it can be said that the authority continued even if no election had been held and any election held is declared void. The power to hold election cannot remain suspended for indefinite period, for being revived at a later stage, particularly when there was as such no restraint order from holding any election. Sri Arun Tandon learned counsel for the respondent informed that Civil suit was instituted by the relative of the petitioner wherein injunction was obtained restraining Kartar Singh from holding election without allowing the plaintiffs to participate in the said election. According to him because of such injunction Kartar Singh could not hold election and he had held election on 2571993 after allowing the plaintiff to participate in the said election. If the said Kartar Singh can hold election in July 1993 by allowing the plaintiff to participate therein, there was no difficulty to hold election by allowing the plaintiff to participate therein, there was no difficulty to hold election by allowing the plaintiff to participate even within reasonable time from the date of order of injunction issued by the Civil Court. Sri Kartar Singh, admittedly is not a party to the dispute. Therefore, he cannot have disallowed the plaintiff from participating in the election or cannot suspend the election, so as not to allow the plaintiff to participate in the said election. The facts discloses that the said Kartar Singh has chosen opportune moment to hold election taking the advantage of the interim order passed by the Civil Court at the time when virtually period for which election was to be held by Sri Kartar Singh, had expired. He had sought to hold the said election despite the order dated 2731993 whereby the Authorised Controller was required to be appointed with the power to hold election. Annexure 5 to the writ petition by which the Authorised Controller was appointed specifying that he was appointed with the poor to held election,

The Scheme of administration of the institution provides in Clause 8 for constitution of the committee of management, English translation whereof has been furnished by Sri Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein it appears from para 5 thereof that election is to be held by secret ballot which are to be preserved under the signatures of the presiding officer till the holding of next election and the Presiding Officer is to be appointed with the permission of the Inspector by the office bearers or members declaring the election simultaneously with the giving of intimation of the elections. The name and address of the Presiding Officer was also to be specified in advertisement of the election schedule. In the present case from annexure CA 5 to counteraffidavit it appears that it was the Kartar Singh who had sought permission or approval for holding election. Since there was no Committee of management, therefore, there is no scope of office bearers or members to declare the election and simultaneously to get Presiding Officer appointed with the permission of the Inspector. The Scheme of administration does provide that the Presiding Officer once appointed can declare the election after lapse of three years from the date of his appointment when the life of the committee of management, if elected in right time, would have expired. Then again when specific order is there, namely the orders dated 2731993 and the orders dated 3061993, therefore there can not be any scope for holding election by Sri Kartar Singh. Inasmuch by reason of the order dated 27393 the appointment of Sri Kartar Singh stood impliedly cancelled. The order dated 3061993, having been passed appointing the Authorised Controller with a direction to hold election, being subsequent specific order, would govern the election to be held after the order dated 2731993. Therefore the same is special order to which the earlier order appointing the Presiding Officer, for holding election is bound to yield. Even then the purpose for which Sri Kartar Singh was appointed had stood frustrated because of the subsequent developments and therefore his appointment also stood frustrated as soon the order dated 2731993 was passed, It appears that steps for holding election were taken after the order dated 2731993 was passed, but before the Authorised Controller was appointed and the proceeding for holding election was initiated even before Authorised Controller had taken over the charge. As soon the Authorised Controller is appointed, it is he who can hold election and it was for him to take all steps which the office bearers or members could have taken including declaration of the result of election and appointment of the Presiding Officer with the permission of the Inspector as provided the Scheme of Administration. The facts discloses a very unhealthy situation. Sri Kartar Singh has shown undue interest in the matter and scant regard for the orders dated 2731993 and thereafter the order dated 3061993. The order dated 2731993 was passed pursuant to the order dated 11111992 passed in writ petition 3890 of 1992. Therefore the said order deserved respect.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, as disclosed above, no election could have been held by Sri Kartar Singh on 2571993. This question has not been gone into by order dated 31121994, contained in Annexure 25 to the writ petition, by the Deputy Director of Education, despite specific directions given to him in the order dated 1181994 in the true spirit as it should have been gone into and he had thoroughly misdirected himself and had come to perverse finding that the election was held on 2571993 and that too validly. Such a finding can not be supported in view of the fact disclosed above. The; state ofaffairs does not show a happy situation and speaks ill of the manner in which the entire episode was brought into being.

In the circumstances of the case the said order can not be sustained and, as such is quashed and it is declared that the election held on 2571993 could not have been held by Sri Kartar Singh, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such, the Committee of Management, so elected can not continue to manage the affairs of the institution. In that view of the matter the Dy. Director, Meerut Region, Meerut is hereby directed to appoint the Authorised Controller as early as possible preferably within a period of one month from today. The Authorised Controller shall take over charge immediately upon his appointment. Until the charge is taken over by the Authorised Controller the Committee of is management, not functioning shall be permitted to function. But it shall not take any policy decision and shall not incur any expanses other than the expenses which are required for .day to day functioning of the institution and disbursement of salary to the teachers and other employees of the institution as soon due until the charges are taken over by the Authorised Controller, so appointed. The Authorised Controller shall take immediate steps to ascertain the list of members within a period of one month from the date of his appointment and hold election immediately .thereafter, according to the time schedule to be approved upon getting permission of appointment of the Presiding Officer who should be a person, preferably holding an office in the administration of the district. The Presiding Officer so appointed shall take necessary steps and hold and conclude the action within a period of one month from the date of appointment.

With these observations the above writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.