Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 227 (PAT)

Rita Devi v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-25

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the decision, as contained in Annexure-1 whereby respondent nos. 9 to 22 have been inducted as the member of the Vidyalaya Siksha Samiti of Nationalised Middle School, Rajnagar. 2. It is the stand of the petitioner that she was elected as member of the Vidyalaya Sikshak Samiti (for short the Samiti) in a meeting held on 6.2.2002. Hence the constitution of Samiti by the impugned decision at a latter stage is illegal in the eye of law. 3. Constitution of Samiti is contemplated under the Bihar State Vidyalaya Sikshak Samiti Act, 2000. It inter alia provides for constitution of Samiti separately for primary, middle and basic schools consisting of the members as indicated therein. Section 3(9) of the Bihar State Vidyalaya Sikshak Samiti Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for election of nine guardian members by the Aam Sabha. It is the stand of the petitioner that in such a meeting held on 6.8.2002 she was elected as a member of the Samiti but subsequently another meeting was held in which respondents 9 to 22 have been inducted in the Samiti, but the pettioner has been left out. 4. In order to assail the induction of responents 9 to 22 as the member of the Samiti, Mr. Ghanshyam Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised several points but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, I deem it inexpedient to either incorporate or answer the same. Mr. Jha contends that under section 8 of the Act the Block Development Officer is to designate inducer of District Primary Education Programme/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/Speed and of any other similar programmes as the Election Officer. He draws my attention to the impugned decision and points out that respondents 9 to 22 have been elected in which the Panchayat Sewak was the election officer. 5. J.C. to S.C. Ill appearing on behalf of the State, Mr. B.N.P. Singh for respondents 9 to 11. 14 and 16 to 22 and Mr. Jha for respondents 12 and 15 contend that induction of respondents 9 to 22 as member of the Samiti cannot be said to be illegal only on the ground that Panchayat Sewak was appointed as the Election Officer. B.N.P. Singh for respondents 9 to 11. 14 and 16 to 22 and Mr. Jha for respondents 12 and 15 contend that induction of respondents 9 to 22 as member of the Samiti cannot be said to be illegal only on the ground that Panchayat Sewak was appointed as the Election Officer. Rival contention necessitates consideration of section 8 of the Act, which reads as follows :- "8. The Election of the Members of the Vidyalay Shiksha Samiti.- (i) inducer of the District Primary Education Pro- gramme/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/SPEED/ any of the similar programmes may be designated as the Election Officer for the election of the members of the Vidyaiaya Shiksha Samiti by Block Development Officer. (2) The election will be held in the School premises by majority of votes of the members of the Aam Sabha present on a pre-appointed date and time. (3) The results shall be announced legally after the election and will be registered immediately." From a plain reading of section 8 of the Act, it is evident that only an inducer of District Primary Education Programme/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/SPEED/any of the similar programmes can be designated as Election Officer for the election of the members of the Samiti and the power to designate the election officer has been conferred on the Block Development Officer. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Panchayat Sewak in any way induced any of the programmes referred to in section 8 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the Panchayat Sewak as election officer to hold the election of the member of the Samiti is illegal and hence the election held by him is vitiated in the eye of law. 6 It is common ground that the election on 6.8.2002 was not held by the Election Officer designated by the Block Development Officer in which petitioner claims to have been elected and as such the petitioner also cannot enure benefit of her election on the said date. 7. In the result, the application is allowed, impugned decision (Annexure-1) is quashed and the Block Development Officer is directed designate a person to hold the election of the Samiti within eight weeks in accordane with law bearing in mind the observation aforesaid. In the facts and circumstances of the case I leave the party to bear their own cost.