Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1532 (ALL)

Sanatan Dharm Inter College v. State of U. P.

2016-04-25

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Supplementary affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated 20.4.2016 is taken on record. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 22.3.2016 passed by State Government in exercise of power under Section 16-D (4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, whereby an Authorised Controller has been appointed for a period of six months with a direction to get the shortcomings removed. 3. The first petitioner is a recognised institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Under Section 16-A of the Act, it is required to have an approved Scheme of Administration. The impugned order specifically recites that the petitioners have failed to get the Scheme amended as per the model Scheme of Administration despite repeated notices; that Brijraj Singh Chauhan, the second petitioner, is continuing as Manager for the sixth consecutive term despite a bar in relation thereto under the model Scheme of Administration; that District Inspector of Schools had by letter dated 3.11.2014 discarded previous elections, but still the management is unlawfully continuing; that financial irregularities had been committed in respect of cutting and sale of trees and there is mis-utilisation of the income from the agricultural land belonging to the institution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents relating to the elections were regularly submitted before the authorities and in the absence of any parallel claim, the Committee remained in effective control, although the signatures of the Manager was not attested, nor the election was approved. He further submitted that the explanation furnished by the petitioners to the show cause notice was not properly considered. 5. Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that since after 1996, none of the elections have been approved. He also does not dispute that by letter dated 3.11.2014, the District Inspector of Schools discarded the election dated 28.9.2014 and further required the Manager to get the Scheme amended as per the model Scheme of Administration, failing which an Authorised Controller shall be appointed, but still the Scheme was not got amended so far. 6. The model Scheme of Administration, apart from containing a ban that a person cannot hold a post for more than three consecutive terms, also contemplate holding of elections in presence of an Observer. 6. The model Scheme of Administration, apart from containing a ban that a person cannot hold a post for more than three consecutive terms, also contemplate holding of elections in presence of an Observer. The petitioners in their reply dated 21.11.2014 to letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 3.11.2014 in which he held that election dated 28.9.2014 had been held in violation of the departmental orders and directions, admitted that they had held the election in September 2014, without getting the Scheme amended. The explanation given was that they were not aware of the Government Order dated 25.8.2011 in that regard. But the fact remains that election dated 28.9.2014 had not been recognised on the ground that it was held in violation of the provisions contained in the model Scheme of Administration. Under Section 16-D (vi) an Authorised Controller can be appointed in case the management of the institution is being conducted otherwise than in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. 7. In view of above undisputed facts, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.