Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1533 (ALL)

Siwal High School v. State of U. P.

2016-04-25

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Sri R. K. Ojha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri R. P. Dubey on behalf of respondent 4. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit. 2. Siwal High School, Siwal, District Meerut is a recognised minority institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. According to the petitioners, the last election of the Committee of Management of the institution had taken place on 28.8.2013 and the same was recognised by the third respondent (District Inspector of Schools, Meerut) by order dated 26.9.2013. A complaint was filed before the Joint Director of Education, I Division, Meerut (second respondent) by the fourth respondent alleging that he had no knowledge of election dated 28.8.2013 as entire proceedings in this regard are a result of fraud and manipulation. The second respondent relying on affidavits of various members, filed in support of the said complaint discarded the election dated 28.8.2013 and appointed Associate District Inspector of Schools, Meerut as Authorised Controller for conducing fresh election of the Committee of Management from amongst the valid members within a period of three months as per the provisions of the approved Scheme of Administration. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred Writ-C No. 45196 of 2015 before this Court contending that the Authorised Controller could not have been appointed in a minority institution. This Court repelled the plea and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 14.8.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred Special Appeal No.595 of 2015. The Special Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgement dated 3.9.2015 and the order of learned Single Judge as well as the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the second respondent were quashed. This Court held that in view of provision of sub section (14) of section 16-D, the Authorised Controller could not have been appointed in respect of a minority institution. This Court held that in view of provision of sub section (14) of section 16-D, the Authorised Controller could not have been appointed in respect of a minority institution. The contention of the other side that an independent provision exists in the Scheme of Administration and which enables the authorities to appoint an Authorised Controller, was repelled by holding that the Scheme was framed before the conferment of minority status to the petitioner and consequently such provision cannot overrule the specific provisions of the statute. However, liberty was given to the parties to challenge the legitimacy of the election dated 28.8.2013 by availing remedies which are available in law. 3. It seems that in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, the fourth respondent agitated the matter afresh before the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut by filing a representation challenging the legality of the election held on 28.8.2013. According to him, the election held was after the expiry of the term of the erstwhile committee and also from amongst the members who were not validly enrolled and thus prayed for the election being declared as invalid. The District Inspector of Schools, by impugned order dated 7.4.2016 accepted the contention of the fourth respondent and appointed the fifth respondent as election officer for conducting fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the findings recorded by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order are contrary to the adjudication made by this Court in judgement dated 3.9.2015 while deciding the Special Appeal. It is urged that in Special Appeal, this Court has held that the Authorised Controller cannot be appointed in the institution, it being a minority institution, but in the teeth of such finding, the District Inspector of Schools has discarded the last election of the petitioners solely on the ground that after 25.2.2013, fresh election have been held by Authorised Controller alone. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the election dated 28.8.2013 was recognised by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 26.9.2013 and the said order having not been set aside by any court, the District Inspector of Schools was not having any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order which in fact is review of the previous order. It is urged that at least the dispute could have been referred to the Regional Level Committee. 5. Sri R. K. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the last election was held on 25.1.2009 and under the approved Scheme of Administration, the term of Committee being three year one month, the erstwhile Committee had no power to conduct the fresh election on 28.8.2013. He further submitted that the minority status was conferred to the institution on 4.6.2015 in pursuance of an application moved on 10.12.2013. Thus, on 28.8.2013, when the previous election was held, the institution had not been conferred with minority status. Consequently, as per the Scheme of Administration, the election could only have been held only by the Authorised Controller. Accordingly, he tried to distinguish the judgement of this Court in Special Appeal. He further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has only recorded findings on the basis of admitted facts on record and thus it is sought to be contended that the order does not suffer from any infirmity. However, he does not dispute that the previous election dated 28.8.2013 was recognised by the District Inspector of Schools on 26.9.2013 and the said order has not been set aside or quashed until now. In such circumstances, he very fairly conceded that the dispute was of such nature which ought to have been referred to the Regional Level Committee. He very fairly submitted that the matter be referred to the Regional Level Committee for being decided in accordance with law, to which learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel also do not have any objection. 6. Accordingly, order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The third respondent is directed to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee for being decided in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Regional Level Committee shall endeavour to decide the Reference expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date Reference is received by him.