JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of Chaudhary Charan Singh Inter College, Bhatauna, District Bulandshahar and Fanish Kumar Tivatiya claiming himself to be the Manager have filed this petition for quashing the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 13th October, 2011 as conveyed by the communication dated 17th October, 2011 for granting approval to the election of Bijendra Singh as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution for the remaining term. 2. It is stated that election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 16th December, 2009 in which petitioner No. 2-Fanish Kumar Tivatiya was elected as the Manager and Ajay Kumar was elected as the President. This election was approved by the District Inspector of Schools and the signatures of Fanish Kumar Tivatiya were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools. Subsequently eight members moved a motion of no confidence against the Manager which was passed in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 10th April, 2011 and respondent No. 6-Bijendra Singh was elected as the Manager for the remaining term and this motion was also ratified by the General Body on 24th April, 2011. 3. Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the Samiti, which has been defined as the Committee of Management of the Institution, consists of 15 members and Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution requires that a motion of no confidence against a member or office bearer of the Samiti can be passed by majority of 2/3rds members of the Samiti if there are serious charges, the alleged motion of no confidence is of no consequence as it was passed by only 8 members and petitioner No. 2 continues to be the Manager of the Samiti. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that Clause 12 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution which deals with the constitution of the Samiti provides that the Samiti shall consist of not only 12 members elected by the General Body under Clause 5 of the Scheme of Administration but also of the 3 ex-officio members who are the Principal and 2 teachers with voting rights to all members of the Samiti. It is for this reason that learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at least 10 members should vote in favour of the no confidence motion as 2/3rd of 15 is 10 but only 8 members participated in the meeting. 4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bijendra Singh assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, however, submitted that under Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration only the 12 elected members of the Samiti can cast their vote and so the motion of no confidence that was passed on 10th April, 2011 by 8 members is valid. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that when the office bearers of the Samiti are elected by the 12 members elected to the Samiti by the General Body under Clause 5 and the 3 ex-officio members have no role to play in the election of the office bearers, these 3 ex-officio members should have no role to play in the motion of no confidence against the office bearers. Learned Senior Counsel also placed before the Court the provisions of Clause 16(1) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to support this contention. 5. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the 3 ex-officio members of the Samiti have a right to vote in the motion of no confidence brought against an office bearer of the Samiti under Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 7. 6. The sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the 3 ex-officio members of the Samiti have a right to vote in the motion of no confidence brought against an office bearer of the Samiti under Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 7. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the parties on Clauses 16(1) and (2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution which are in Hindi and are reproduced below : “16 (1) insu lnL;ksa ls fHkUu lfefr ds lnL;ksa@inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds in esa gksus okyh fdlh vkdfLed fjfDr ds iwfrZ lfefr }kjk dk;Zdky dh ‘ks”k vof?k ds fy;s dh tk;sxh vkSj bl izdkj fu;qDr O;fDr ml ‘ks”k dky ds fy, lfefr dk lnL; ;k inkf/kdkjh ( tSlh Hkh n’kk gks ) gksxk ftlds fy, og O;fDr jgrk] ftlds LFkku dh iwfrZ djrkA lfefr dh ,slh fjfDr dh iwfrZ gsrq insu lnL; Hkh oksV nsus ds vf/kdkjh gksxsaA (2) fdlh Hkh lfefr lnL; ;k inkf/kdkjh ds fo:} xaHkhj dkj.kksa ls vfo’okl izLrko yk;k tk ldsxkA vfo’okl izLrko ikfjr djus ds fy, lfefr ds 2@3 dk cgqer gksuk vko’;d gSA ” Clause 2(6) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution defines Samiti to mean the Committee of Management of the Institution. 8. The constitution of the Samiti is provided for in Clause 12. Clause 12(1) provides that the Samiti shall consist of 12 members to be elected by the General Body under Clauses 5 and 3 ex-officio members namely the Principal and two teachers. It also specifically provides that all the members of the Samiti shall have a right to vote. Clause 12(2) provides that the office bearers of the Samiti shall be elected by majority by these 12 members elected by the General Body. It also provides that the President, Vice-President, Manager, Deputy Manager and Treasurer will be the 5 office bearers. 9. Clause 16(1) provides that any casual vacancy on the post of an office bearer or a member of the Samiti, except the 3 ex-officio members, shall be filled by the Samiti for the remaining term and the ex-officio members shall also have a right to vote. Clause 16(2) provides that a motion of no confidence can be brought against any office bearer or a member of the Samiti if there are serious charges but it shall have to be passed by majority of 2/3rd members of the Samiti. Clause 16(2) provides that a motion of no confidence can be brought against any office bearer or a member of the Samiti if there are serious charges but it shall have to be passed by majority of 2/3rd members of the Samiti. Under Clause 16(3) of the Scheme of Administration a motion of no confidence will be final only when it is accepted by the General Body. 10. It is thus seen that the strength of the Samiti is 15. It consists of 5 office bearers, 7 members and 3 ex-officio members and all of them have a right to vote. Under Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration, a motion of no confidence can be brought against any member or office bearer of the Samiti but what is important to note is that such no confidence motion has to be passed by a majority of 2/3rd members of the Samiti. Thus, on a simple reading of Clauses 12(1) and 16(2), it is clear that 2/3rd majority has to be calculated keeping in mind that the strength of the Samiti is 15. 11. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. -6 that when the ex-officio members have no role to play in the election of office bearers and members of the Samiti, these ex-officio members should also have no role to play in the motion of no confidence cannot be accepted. 12. It needs to be noticed that under Clause 12(1) of the Scheme of Administration all the members of Samiti are entitled to vote. This means that both the 12 elected members and the 3 ex-officio members can vote. Under Clause 12(2), which deals with the office bearers of the Samiti, only the 12 members of the Samiti elected by the General Body under Clause 5 can elect the 5 office bearers by majority. Thus, though the ex-officio members of the Samiti have a right to vote as stipulated in Clause 12(1) of the Scheme of Administration, they have been specifically prohibited from exercising their voting rights for electing the 5 office bearers under Clause 12(2) and it is for this reason that it was necessary to state in Clause 16(1), if the ex-officio members of the Samiti were required to cast their vote, that they will also exercise their voting rights. 13. 13. In this view of the matter, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that in the absence of any specific provision in Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration conferring a right to the 3 ex-officio members to vote, as has been provided to these ex-officio members under Clause 16(1) of the Scheme of Administration, these ex-officio members cannot vote in the motion of no confidence, cannot be accepted. This submission is also contrary to the provisions of Clause 12(1) which gives a right to all the members of the Samiti, including the ex-officio members, to vote. 14. Section 16-A of the Act, on which reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, also provides that the Scheme of Administration shall, amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested with authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the Institution and that the Head of the institution and two teachers shall be ex officio members of the Committee of Management with a right to vote. 15. It is not in dispute that the Samiti consists of 15 members out of which 12 are elected members and 3 are ex-officio members. As 2/3rd of 15 is 10, at least 10 members will have to be present in the meeting if the no confidence motion is required to be passed by a majority of 2/3rd members. However, only 8 members participated in the meeting held on 10th April, 2011 in which the motion of no confidence is said to have been passed. The requirement of Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution was, therefore, not satisfied. In such circumstances, the motion of no confidence was not validly passed and ratification, if any, by the General Body is of no consequence. Respondent No. 6, therefore, continues to be the Manager of the Samiti. 16. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 13th October, 2011 and conveyed by the letter dated 17th October, 2011 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside and it is declared that petitioner No. 2-Fanish Kumar Tivatiya shall continue to be the Manager of the Samiti. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.