Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 554 (ALL)

RAM YASH SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-03-07

DILIP GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 1st October, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur by which the Committee of Management of Shri Aditya Lal Janta Yogesh Uchchattar Machyamik Vidyalaya, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Institution’) with Geeta Prasad Tiwari as President and Guru Lal Srivastava as the Manager was approved. 2. It transpires from the record of the writ petition that the Institution is an Intermediate Institution which receives grant-in-aid from the State Government. The elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held in 1989 were not approved and the Joint Director of Education ordered for appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak for getting fresh elections held. The District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur was appointed as the Prabandh Sanchalak. The election programme was published by the Prabandh Sanchalak in the newspaper on 6th July, 2009 and according to it the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was to be held on 19th July, 2009. The date of election was, however, postponed and another programme was published in the newspaper on 9th September, 2009 that the election would be held on 20th September, 2009. The District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 14th September, 2009 appointed Santosh Kumar Rai as the Election Officer. However, before the election programme was published on 9th September, 2009, the erstwhile Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution submitted a representation before the Prabandh Sanchalak on 6th September, 2009 that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution may be held sometimes in October, 2009 as he was ill and was advised bed rest by the Doctor. It is said that on the said application, the Prabandh Sanchalak passed an order on 7th September, 2009 postponing the election and also directed that information should be published in the newspaper. On 20th September, 2009, a publication was made in the newspaper that the election scheduled to be held on 20th September, 2009 has been postponed until further orders. 3. On 20th September, 2009, a publication was made in the newspaper that the election scheduled to be held on 20th September, 2009 has been postponed until further orders. 3. The petitioner claiming himself to be a contender for the post of Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution, on coming to know that election was held in which Guru Lal Srivastava was elected as the Manager and Geeta Prasad Tiwari as President filed a representation before the Joint Director of Education that election could not have been held on 20th September, 2009 as they had been postponed by the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools and a notice had also been published in the newspaper regarding this fact. However, the District Inspector of Schools, who was also the Prabandh Sanchalak of the Institution, passed an order on 1st October, 2009 recognising the election held on 20th September, 2009. It is this order that has been impugned in the present petition. 4. It is the submission of Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that once the District Inspector of Schools had postponed the election scheduled to be held on 20th September, 2009 and information of this fact was also published in the newspaper on 20th September, 2009, there was no occasion for holding the election on 20th September, 2009 and, therefore, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 1st October, 2009 granting recognition to the election held on 20th September, 2009, without even considering the objections filed by the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. In this connection he has also pointed out that the District Inspector of Schools got the election held on 20th September, 2009 by giving telephonic instructions to the newly appointed Election Officer-Raj Kishore Yadav and the Observer, as is clear from the two reports dated 20th September, 2009 submitted by the Election Officer and the Observer which action of the District Inspector of Schools is not permissible in law. 5. Sri S.M. Nazar Bokhari, learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management of the Institution and the Manager and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5. Sri S.M. Nazar Bokhari, learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management of the Institution and the Manager and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order since the District Inspector of Schools had not issued any direction for publication of the notice for postponing the election and in this connection it is stated that the dispatch register shows that Dispatch No. 4776-78 is actually in connection with the letter sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the Principal of the Government City Inter College, Gorakhpur and not for postponing the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. It is, therefore, their submission that in the absence of any valid notice having been published for postponement of the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 20th September, 2009, the election was rightly held on the said date and there is no infirmity in approving it since only one candidate submitted application against one post. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the District Inspector of Schools was working as the Prabandh Sanchalak of the Institution. Initially the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was to be held on 19th July, 2009 but it was postponed and a notice was published in the newspaper on 9th September, 2009 that the election will be held on 20th September, 2009. The District Inspector of Schools appointed Santosh Kumar Rai as the Election Officer by the order dated 14th September, 2009 and earlier, by the order dated 31st August, 2009, Dr. Vyas Muni Rai was appointed as the Observer. The erstwhile Manager Guru Lal Srivastava, however, submitted an application dated 6th September, 2009 to the Prabandh Sanchlak/District Inspector of Schools with a request that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution may be held in October, 2009 since he was very seriously ill and was advised bed rest by the Doctor. Some other members also moved an application before the Prabandh Sanchalak for postponement of the election. Some other members also moved an application before the Prabandh Sanchalak for postponement of the election. The petitioner has filed the said application for postponement of the election as Annexure 3 to the writ petition and from the same it transpires that on 7th September, 2009, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order for postponement of the election and for publication of this information in the newspaper. A news item was thereafter published in the newspaper ‘’Aaj’ on 20th September, 2009 that the election scheduled to be held on 20th September, 2009 have been postponed until further orders. 8. It needs to be noticed that Raj Kishore Yadav, who was the Election Officer, submitted a report dated 20th September, 2009 to the District Inspector of Schools. This report begins by stating that it is with reference to the telephonic conversation had with the District Inspector of Schools and the directions so issued. It further mentions that since only one nomination was received for each post, there was no necessity for holding the election and, therefore, the result was declared. The Election Observer Dr. Vimla Mishra in her communication dated 20th September, 2009 also refers to the telephonic conversation with the District Inspector of Schools and the instructions issued. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of the letter dated 31st August, 2009 sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the Manager has been enclosed in which it is mentioned that Dr. Vyas Muni Rai, Lecturer, Government Inter College, Gorakhpur is the Election Observer. By the communication dated 14th September, 2009, the District Inspector of Schools had appointed Santosh Kumar Rai as the Election Officer and this has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The stand taken by the District Inspector of Schools in the counter-affidavit is as follows : “10. That one Guru Lal Srivastava has requested the deponent addressing her as authorised controller, has requested that on account of his illness the election may be postponed and the next date may kindly be fixed in October, 2009. The deponent has considered the said application submitted by the single person and same application has been rejected as it was submitted by only one member of the Committee of Management. The deponent has considered the said application submitted by the single person and same application has been rejected as it was submitted by only one member of the Committee of Management. It is also pertinent to mention here that petitioner as well as two other members of the Committee of Management have never submitted any objection before the deponent regarding the alleged election dated 20.9.2009. 11. That the publication of notice dated 20.9.2009 as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition is fictitious and forged documents. The deponent has never written, ordered, requested or orally informed no one to get the notice published as alleged in the writ petition (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). 12. That on coming into the knowledge of the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by this Hon’ble Court the deponent immediately enquired from the press reporter Aaj Ghazipur Desk Ghazipur as to under what circumstances and what authority the notice dated 20.9.2009 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) has been published. Further it is said in the notice that a clarification which was given to the deponent that on account of some adverse order passed in the writ petition the deponent has defamed and why not a defamation suit may be filed in competent Court. 13. That the said reporter of Newspaper Aaj has not turned up the reply of the said notice till date. 14. That the Manager of the institution has sought a copy of the letter from the press reporter Aaj, showing under whose signature the said publication has been made. The reporter of Aaj, newspaper has sent a letter on 20th October, 2009 to the Manager of the institution namely Sri Aditya Lal Janta Yogesh Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Fooli District Ghazipur alongwith the letter of request to publish the alleged notice dated 20.9.2009. 15. That in order to support the case of the deponent and fraud played by the petitioner, it is crystal clear from the perusal of the dispatch register that on dated 16.9.2009 the letter No. 4776-78 has been dispatched to the Principal of Govt. City Inter College, Ghazipur which has duly been received thereon. 16. 15. That in order to support the case of the deponent and fraud played by the petitioner, it is crystal clear from the perusal of the dispatch register that on dated 16.9.2009 the letter No. 4776-78 has been dispatched to the Principal of Govt. City Inter College, Ghazipur which has duly been received thereon. 16. That the deponent after apprising the facts of the notice published in Newspaper (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) the deponent astonished and surprised, however, considering the circumstances that the deponent has appointed another observer and thus the election process was completed. After completing the election process and information of the observer Sri Guru Lal Srivastava was elected as Manager and his signature was attested as Manager of the institution and newly elected Management Committee was given approval.” 10. It is, therefore, clear from paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit that the District Inspector of Schools was astonished to read the information published in the newspaper on 20th September, 2009 that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution scheduled to be held on 20th September, 2009 have been postponed and, therefore, considering the circumstances of the case, District Inspector of Schools appointed another Observer and the election process was completed and the signatures of Guru Lal Srivastava as Manager were attested on the basis of the information given by the Observer. 11. As noticed hereinabove, the District Inspector of Schools had actually appointed Dr. Vyas Muni Rai as the Observer and, therefore, according to the District Inspector of Schools after the notice was published in the newspaper on 20th September, 2009 he changed the Election Observer and that is why the Election Observer in his report dated 20th September, 2009 has referred to some telephonic instructions and directions issued by the District Inspector of Schools. 12. It also needs to be pointed out that in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, the District Inspector of Schools has stated that the request made by Guru Lal Srivastava in the application submitted by him that the election may be postponed on account of his illness was rejected but this rejection order has not been filed. 12. It also needs to be pointed out that in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, the District Inspector of Schools has stated that the request made by Guru Lal Srivastava in the application submitted by him that the election may be postponed on account of his illness was rejected but this rejection order has not been filed. There is no specific averment in the counter-affidavit that the District Inspector of Schools did not pass the order on 7th September, 2009 on the application filed by Guru Lal Srivastava which was received on 7th September, 2009 and a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, all that has been stated is that the publication of the notice dated 20th September, 2009 is fictitious and forged and the District Inspector of Schools never ordered any person in writing or orally to get the notice published in the newspaper. When the Press placed the order bearing dispatch No. 4776-78 of the District Inspector of Schools regarding postponement of the election, all that has been stated is that the letter bearing dispatch No. 4776-78 was actually sent to the Principal of the Government City Inter College but the copy of the said letter has not been enclosed. 13. This apart, it is not in dispute that the notice was published in the newspaper on 20th September, 2009 that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution have been postponed. In such circumstances, when this fact was in the notice of the District Inspector of Schools as has been stated in paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit, the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution could not have been held and it was incumbent upon the District Inspector of Schools to ensure that the election was not held, though he could have ordered for an enquiry as to how the notice was published when such an order was not issued. Holding of the election despite notice having been published in the newspaper completely vitiates the election and the District Inspector of Schools should not have granted approval to the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution said to have been held on 20th September, 2009, particularly when these facts were brought to his notice by the petitioner. 14. Holding of the election despite notice having been published in the newspaper completely vitiates the election and the District Inspector of Schools should not have granted approval to the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution said to have been held on 20th September, 2009, particularly when these facts were brought to his notice by the petitioner. 14. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the order dated 1st October, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. However, the Court cannot ignore the conduct of the District Inspector of Schools who had been working as Prabandh Sanchalak of the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools holds a responsible position in the Education Department and has been given the authority to approve the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. His conduct should be fair and above board and should not raise any suspicion. A detailed enquiry, therefore, needs to be held regarding the conduct of the District Inspector of Schools. For this purpose the Director of Education shall appoint a senior officer to hold an enquiry against the District Inspector of Schools and shall pass an appropriate order on the basis of the report submitted to him. 15. The order dated 1st October, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is, accordingly, set aside. The Prabandh Sanchalak of the Committee of Management of the Institution shall get the election held at the earliest and if the same District Inspector of Schools who had passed the impugned order is working as the Prabandh Sanchalak, then the authority should pass an appropriate order for changing the Prabandh Sanchalak. 16. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. —————