Sati Kumar Verma vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak in the College in question, who may hold the election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the College in accordance with the provisions of Scheme of Administration after finalizing the electoral college within some reasonable period.

The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that the last election of the Committee of Management was held on 19.10.2004 and the three years term of the office bearers so elected in the last election, admittedly expired on 19.10.2007. As office bearers of the Committee of Management did not initiated process of fresh election before the expiry of aforesaid term of three years, hence some members of the general body raised their grievance against the deliberate delay, being caused by the then Committee of Management in office in holding fresh election, however a notice was published for the first time on 14.1.2008 fixing 20.1.2008 as a date for holding fresh election.

The members of the general body including the petitioner after an enquiry, came to know that the list of members of general body has been enlarged as in the last election in which 220 members of the general body had participated and out of them 34 members had died ; that thus only 186 members were alive ; that Param Hans Singh, opposite party No. 4, with ulterior motives by illegality including his family members, relatives as well as friends (total 65 persons) prepared a list of total 251 members of the general body for holding fresh election in order to grab the Committee of Management. One of the grievances raised by the members of the general body including the petitioner was that a fair and impartial election of the Committee of Management should be held through the Prabandh Sanchalak, after finalizing the electoral college on the basis of only genuine members, hence the petitioner alontiwth 64 members of the general body made joint representation before all the departmental authorities raising their grievances against the aforesaid manufactured list of members of general body by the opposite party No. 4 and have now have come up in the instant writ petition for a direction by this Court for holding of fair and impartial election of the Committee of Management in accordance with law.

Contesting respondent No. 4 has filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein the date of earlier election as well as three years term of the earlier Committee of Management has not been disputed. However, an effort has been made by him to justify the delay in initiating the process for fresh election. Accordingly he has filed Annxure No. CA-1 which is resolution alleged to have been passed on 13.11.2005 by the Committee of Management for enrolling new members in the general body.

It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the document filed as annexure No. CA-1 itself demonstrates that it is fabricated, for paragraph No. 1 of the said resolution dated 13.11.2005 is written in some different hand writing whereas paragraph No. 2 thereof is in totally different hand writing but in the bottom thereof signature has been put by one Adhydhya Singh on 21.12.2002. The aforesaid document is, thus obviously forged one. It is stated that it is evident from said Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit that on the top, page number of Register is 10 and no subsequent pages thereafter have been numbered and that said resolution is said to have been passed on 1.10.2006 whereas the document filed as annexure No. CA-1, is apparently an earlier resolution dated 13.11.2005 on page numbers of register as 13 and 14 respectively, which is not possible.

It is further submitted that a plea has been taken by the opposite party No. 4 that under Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration, his term will be deemed to have been extended beyond the period of three years, unless his successor is elected, which is a totally misconceived plea in as much as that such an interpretation would render the clause in the Scheme of Administration specifying the term of Committee of Management as redundant for in that event the term will continue and shall depend upon the sweet will of the earlier office bearers to elect their successor according to their own wishes.

In this regard reliance has been placed upon under Clause 17 of the Scheme of Administration wherein it has been specifically provided that the election of office bearers and Committee shall be held after every three years.

In support of the above submissions, the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(1) 1998 (1) UPLBEC 379 (D.B.), Committee of Management v. Alleged Committee of Management (Paragaphs No. 8, 9 and 11) wherein it has been held that after expiry of three years period, earlier office bearers cannot hold fresh election and in such cases, only the Prabandh Sanchalak has to be appointed to hold fresh election. The aforesaid judgment has been rendered after relying on all the earlier judgments on the point.

(2) 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1015 Committee of Management, Adarsh Inter College, Siwankala v. Regional Deputy Director of Education and Ors. (paragaphs No. 15 and 17) and (3) 2004 (4) Education and Service Cases, 2257 (Full Bench), Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors. (paragraphs No. 37 & 38) wherein it has been held that even if there is no provision in the Scheme of Administration for appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak, in that case too after expiry of three years term, Prabandh Sanchalak is necessary to be appointed to hold fresh election.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that election of the Committee of Management was held on 19.10.2004 in which respondent No. 4 was elected as Manager alongwith other office bearers. Thereafter the papers of election were forwarded for recognition to the Regional Committee which was recognized by it vide order dated 9.3.2005.

It is stated that in pursuance of the recognition accorded by the Regional Committee as stated above the signature of the respondent No. 4 as Manager of Patel Smarak Inter Patel Nagar, Bhathat, Gorakhpur was attested by District Inspector of Schools, vide order dated 4.8.2005. A photocopy of the order of attestation has also been annexed as Annexure SA-1 in supplementary affidavit dated 30.3.2005. Thereafter the Committee of Management passed a resolution on 18.11.2007 appended with the counter affidavit for holding election of the Committee of Management and date of the election was fixed on 20.1.2008 and the members of the general body were accordingly informed for participating in the election, which was to be held on 20.1.2008 as per schedule notice published in Gorakhpur edition in daily newspaper ''Hindustan'' dated 14.1.2008 appended as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Associate District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur was appointed as officer by the DIOS, Gorakhpur for holding the election of Committee of Management.

It is submitted that thereafter observer reached at college premises on 20.1.2008 and tried to hold the election of Committee of Management but the petitioner and his associates made hindrance in election process and due to these reasons election of Committee of Management could not be held on 20.1.2008 and the Associate District Inspector of Schools by means of his report on 21.1.2008 to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur for holding the election of Committee of Management on another date and the Committee of Management by resolution then decided to hold election on 17.2.2008. Accordingly letter was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur for appointing an observer. In the meantime the petitioner filed the present writ petition in which by order dated 14.2.2008 counter affidavit was called for.

A supplementary affidavit has also filed by respondent No. 4 on 30.3.2008 wherein it has been stated that election of the Committee of Management by him held on 19.10.2004 was recognized on 9.3.2005 by the Regional Committee, hence the tenure of earlier office bearers will be deemed to have commenced w.e.f. 9.3.2005 and accordingly, three years term will expire on 9.3.2008.

Although such pleas was neither taken in the counter affidavit nor anywhere else, however it is totally misconceived the face of it. Moreover this issue has already been considered and decided by this Court in a catena of decisions almost individually holding that the term of the office beaters of the Committee will commence from the date of declaration of result of election and the term of the Committee of Management cannot be extended beyond three years period irrespective of the fact that it is recognized on subsequent date or for any other reason.

The pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and the respondent No. 4 has failed to show any provision of law on the basis of which he can oppose appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak for holding fresh election. On the other hand, according to the well considered view of this Court only Prabandh Sanchalak can hold fair and impartial fresh election after expiry of the term of ex office bearers which has already expired on 10.10.2007 after preparing voters list of genuine members of the general body.

After hearing the counsels for the parties and on perusal of records I am of the considered opinion that in the Scheme of Administration there is a specific provision that the term of office bearers and members other than ex-officio members shall be three years from the date they are elected though it is provided that the term of every office bearers shall be deemed to continue till his successor is chosen.

These appear to be basically two sets of approved Scheme of Administration applying to High Schools and Intermediate colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The first type of the scheme provides term of the Committee of Management and further makes a stipulation that in case elections are not held and new Committee of Management does not take overcharge within a period of three years and one month, it ceases to exist. In that event a Prabandha Sanchalak shall be deemed to have been appointed, who shall take overcharge of the Committee of Management, hold election and handover charge to the newly constituted Committee of Management. In such cases, there is a settled view of this Court that the Committee of Management, after expiry of the aforesaid passed of three years and one month shall have absolutely no authority to hold election and any election held by the outgoing Committee of Management after expiry of three years and one month shall be void.

As regards the second type of Scheme of Administration, a stipulation is made therein that on the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, the office bearers shall continue till their successor is chosen. In regard to such Scheme of Administration the law laid down be the High Court appears to be that the office bearers continuing after the expiry of the term have a right to hold election of the new Committee of Management ''within reasonable time'' and this reasonable time in one other cases has been held to be three months but is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of the each case. It has been further held that in such types of schemes no provision has been made authorizing the Joint Director of Education or other authority to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak for holding elections.

Thus in such cases the Committee of Management has every right to hold election after expiry of the term. The Scheme of Administration in the present case belongs to second category and as such the outgoing Committee of Management, which had initiated the process of election during the continuance of its term has a right to hold the election. The present writ petition appears to have been filed only to stall the continuation of new Committee of Management by a member of the general body and as such the same is not even maintainable having been filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity as a member of the general body.

Moreover the questions raised in the petition requires findings of facts on basis of documentary and oral evidence. Such adjudication of facts is not feasible in writ jurisdiction on basis of exchange of affidavits. The High Court being a Court of records implies that where findings of facts are required to be adjudicated on basis of evidence it must come after decision of facts by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

For the reason stated above, writ petition is dismissed on ground of efficacious and alternative remedy in suit before civil courts.

No order as to costs.