Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 757 (CAL)

Veena Iohia v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-08-10

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2012
Judgment The petitioner, claiming herself as the nominee of the life member of the Managing Committee of the Sri Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya, filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality of the notice dated 22nd June, 2012 issued by the Teacher-in-Charge of the said school for convening a meeting on 29th June, 2012 at 4 P.M. for holding election of office bearers of the Managing Committee of the said school. The said writ petition was initially moved on 29th June, 2012 when this Court passed an interim order by directing that the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 29th June, 2012 may be held, but the outcome of the said meeting will not be given effect to till 4th July, 2012. The said interim order was extended from time to time and the same is still continuing. 2. It was contended by the petitioner that out of six elected guardian members five members have lost their membership as their wards either left the school or completed their studies in the said school subsequent to their election as guardian members. It was further contended that one of the teachers representative namely, Om Prokash Singh has subsequently been appointed as Teacher-in-Charge and, thus, he ceased to become a member under the teachers’ category. Sometime thereafter, the said Om Prokash Singh was replaced by another teacher of the said school who is presently acting as Teacher-in-Charge of the said school and Om Prakash Singh has been reverted back to the post of Assistant Teacher of the said school. 3. In this context it was contended by the petitioner that even though the said Om Prokash Singh is no longer acting as a Teacher-in-Charge of the said school as he has been reverted back to the post of Assistant Teacher of the said school but still then he cannot be permitted to represent the teachers of the said school as their representative in the Managing Committee of the said school, as his representative capacity in the teachers’ category which was terminated on his appointment as teacher-in-charge, cannot revive on his reversion to the post of Assistant Teacher. 4. It was further contended by the petitioner that out of fifteen members only five or six members are there from different categories and as such reconstitution of the Managing Committee with those five or six members cannot be made. 4. It was further contended by the petitioner that out of fifteen members only five or six members are there from different categories and as such reconstitution of the Managing Committee with those five or six members cannot be made. In this context the legality of the said notice dated 22nd June, 2012 was challenged. In short it was contended by the petitioner that no meeting, in fact, could have been held on 29th June, 2012 for want of quorum, as presence of at least eight members was necessary for formulation of quorum. Since during the pendency of this writ petition election of the office bearers was held on 29th June, 2012 as per the schedule, the petitioner in the affidavit in reply filed by her to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent no. 6 challenged the legality of the election of the officer bearers in the meeting held on 29th June, 2012 on the ground of lack of quorum. It was contended by the petitioner that only seven members including Om Prakash Singh were present in the said meeting and as such no meeting could have been held on the said date for want of quorum. It was further contended by the petitioner that the presence of Om Prokash Singh who ceased to become a member under the teachers’ category, cannot be counted. Thus, a question regarding legality of the election held on 29th June, 2012 was sought to be raised by the petitioner. 5. Though the locus of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition was challenged by the respondent no. 6 by contending inter alia that since the petitioner has not been nominated by the life member to represent him in the Managing Committee which is in the process of reconstitution, she cannot maintain the instant writ petition by describing herself as the nominee of the life member but this Court does not feel any necessity to enter into the said dispute as it is found that the Teacher-in-Charge of the said school by his letter dated 14th June, 2012 invited the petitioner to participate in the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 22nd June, 2012 by describing her as nominee of the life member in the previous Managing Committee. Let me now consider the merit of the writ petition in the facts of the present case. Let me now consider the merit of the writ petition in the facts of the present case. On consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the learned Counsel of the parties, this Court is of the view that the dispute which is raised in the writ petition pertains to an election dispute which is capable of resolution by the Board as per the provision contained in para 34 of the Procedure for Holding Election. Though this Court finds that an election dispute raising identical question has already been submitted before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by Jagadish Kanta Mishra and Ors., but the petitioner has not joined herself as a complainant therein. Since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of her grievances relating to the said election dispute before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, this Court, instead of entering into the merit of the said election dispute, thinks it fit to permit the petitioner either to join herself as a complainant in the complaint already submitted by seven complainants as mentioned above or she may lodge an independent complaint of her own before the Board raising an election dispute and in the event she intends to join herself as a complainant in the complaint already submitted by the seven complainants she may intimate her said intention to the Board within a week from date or alternatively if she wants to file an independent complaint of her own, she may do so by filing such a complaint before the Board within a week from date. In the event such a complaint is filed by her before the Board or alternatively if she intimates her intention for joining herself as complainant in the complaint already filed by seven complainants within the time as mentioned above, the Board and/or the Administrator of the Board will make all endeavour to consider the said complaint and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties including those whose election as officer bearers is under challenge and Om Prokash Singh whose membership under the teachers’ category has allegedly been discontinued since the time of his appointment as Teacher-in-Charge of the said school. Needless to mention here that a reasoned order should be passed by the concerned authority in support of its conclusion and the said reasoned should be communicated to the participants in the said hearing, immediately after the election dispute will be resolved. 6. Since a stalemate in the administration of the said school has been continuing for a long time and an elected body could not be framed to run the institution for a couple of years due to various factors, particularly due to inaction on the part of the State respondent, this Court directs the concerned authority to complete the entire exercise in this regard positively within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 7. Since it appears from the school’s record relating to the meeting held on 22nd June, 2012 and 29th June, 2012 that as many as eight members were present in those meetings, this Court is of the prima facie view that quorum was there in both the aforesaid meetings and as such this Court even without entering into the merit of the said election dispute holds that the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the said school may be completed with the elected office bearers but such reconstitution will ultimately abide by the result of the election dispute. It is further clarified that if no election dispute is raised by the petitioner in the manner as aforesaid within the time as granted to her then the direction which is given above upon the Board for resolving the election dispute will become ineffective and the pending election dispute filed by seven other complainants will proceed in its own motion in accordance with law. 8. It is, however, made clear that since this Court has not entered into the merit of the said election dispute while disposing of this writ petition, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is absolutely free to decide the said dispute in its own wisdom without being influenced by any of the observations and/or directions as made and/or passed by this Court hereinabove. Since this writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merit of the election dispute which is raised in this writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to enter into the merit of the application for addition of party and/or application for vacating interim order filed by Mr. Since this writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merit of the election dispute which is raised in this writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to enter into the merit of the application for addition of party and/or application for vacating interim order filed by Mr. Deb Barman’s client. As such, those two applications are deemed to be disposed of and the interim order which was passed earlier in this writ petition, thus, stands discharged in view of the disposal of the writ petition. 9. The writ petition, thus, stands disposed of.