Heard Sri S.K. Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
The petitioner-committee through Smt. Kiran Pandey as the Manager has filed this petition assailing the order dated 8th December, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools refusing to recognize the petitioner as the Manager of the Institution on the ground that since the signatures of the previous Manager Mr. Jagdish Prasad Pandey had not been attested therefore it was not possible to acknowledge the petitioner as the Manager of the Institution for the rest of the term.
Sri Rai learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption, inasmuch as, the facts as unfolded indicate that the elections had been recognized and the petitioner had been elected only for the rest of the term in place of Jagdish Prasad Pandey and in view of this there was no occasion to deny attestation of the signatures of the petitioner.
The facts disclose that the elections of 20th January, 2008 were placed before the Regional Level Committee for recognition in which Jagdish Prasad Pandey had been elected as the Manager. The said elections were scrutinized and were approved vide order dated 8th September, 2008 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-26 to the writ petition. A recital to that effect has been made in Paragraph 35 of the writ petition and the counter affidavit in response thereto filed on behalf of the State recites that Jagdish Prasad Pandey had not complied with and followed the directions in letter dated 8.9.2008.
There is nothing to indicate as to what provision of the scheme was not complied with by Jagdish Prasad Pandey. The issuance of the recognition letter dated 8.9.2008 has not been denied. In such a situation there was no occasion for the District Inspector of Schools to have concluded that since there were no photographs of Jagdish Prasad Pandey available, it was not possible to attest the signatures of Jagdish Prasad Pandey. Needless to mention that Jagdish Prasad Pandey died on 29th August, 2009 and if he had not submitted his photographs the same would not invalidate the elections dated 20th January, 2008. The validity of the said elections therefore could not have been doubted upon by the District Inspector of Schools once the same had been recognized on 8th September, 2008. The submission of the photographs by the erstwhile Manager was a ministerial act for operating accounts and the non-submission of photographs cannot in any way invalidate the elections that had been recognized by a competent authority namely the Joint Director of Education. The order impugned therefore proceeds on an erroneous assumption.
Apart from this, the petitioner came to be elected in place of Sri Jagdish Prasad Pandey for which a request had been made to the District Inspector of Schools to send an observer even though the same was in relation to the filling up of a casual vacancy. The scheme of administration does not in any way require the sending of an observer for filling up of a casual vacancy yet the petitioner had taken recourse to an appropriate stand in order to remove any doubt in the proceedings of the elections. The District Inspector of Schools instead wrote a letter on 5th November, 2009 to the President of the Committee of Management refusing to send an observer on the ground that there were proceedings pending against the committee of management under Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
In the opinion of the Court this could not have been a ground to refuse to either send an observer or even otherwise recognize a Manager who has been duly elected and substituted in place of the erstwhile Manager. The mere pendency of proceedings under Section 16-D of the 1921 Act does not impliedly bar the educational authorities to recognize a management. There is no finding in the impugned order that the elections of the petitioner were contrary to the scheme of administration. Accordingly, the order dated 8.12.2009 is unsustainable. For the reasons aforesaid it is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 31.1.2011 Sahu