Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior counsel for the respondents.
The amendment sought is in relation to the order dated 29.8.2012. In view of the nature of amendment sought, keeping in view the nature of the controversy involved, the prayer made is allowed.
Accordingly, the amendment application is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2012 Hasnain Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49776 of 2012 Petitioner :- C/M Dropadi Devi Jaju Saraswati Balika Inter College & Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Shailendra,Girish Chandra Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Arvind Kumar Singh-Ii,Siddhartha Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Singh-II for the respondent no.4. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh-II also has instructions on behalf of the respondent no.3. Learned counsel for these contesting respondents as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, respondent no.5 Sri Hari Shanker Pandey state that they do not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage either to the writ petition or to the amendment application supported by the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for all the parties agree that the matter be disposed of finally at this stage, keeping in view the nature of the controversy involved.
This petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools directing the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Kasganj, not to operate the accounts of Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, Kasganj and Smt. Dropadi Devi Jaju Saraswati Balika Inter College, Kasganj until further orders in view of the letter dated 4.9.2012 dispatched by Sri Satendra Pal, Advocate, Civil Court, Kasganj.
The other orders challenged are said to have emanated from Shishu Shiksha Samiti, the respondent no.3 on the basis whereof action has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools.
After the matter had been entertained the contesting respondents had put in appearance and it was pointed out by them that the District Inspector of Schools after given a notice to the petitioners proceeded to pass the order on 29.8.2012 whereby one Sri Kaushal Kishore Sahu has been recognized as the Manager of the Institution keeping in view the directions issued by the Shishu Shiksha Samiti society, invoking clause IV of the Bye-laws of the Society. Accordingly, the signatures of the petitioner that had been attested as Manager by the District Inspector of Schools on 15.11.2011 were cancelled. The order dated 29.8.2012 of the District Inspector of Schools has been assailed through an amendment application, which has been allowed today.
The argument of Sri Shailendra is that the impugned order could not have been passed at the instance of the resolution of the society invoking clause IV of the Bye-laws as alleged in the impugned order. He submits that the Society which has passed the order is not authorized in law to take any such decision for superseding the management of the Intermediate Colleges in question. He further contends that the directions issued by the District Inspector of Schools are without adjudicating the controversy in spite of the fact that the petitioner vide his letter dated 21.7.2012 had informed the District Inspector of Schools about non availability of documents and also the persons who should be put to notice for perusing the documents of the elections in which the petitioner was elected as the Manager.
Sri Shailendra submits that the impugned order dated 29.8.2012 has been passed clearly overlooking the said request. Sri Shailendra therefore, contends that this was an indirect method of dislodging the committee of management of the petitioner which was elected under the scheme of administration by which the Institution is governed. He further contends that so far as the reasons given in the impugned order dated 29.8.2012 are concerned they are unsupportable and do not conform to the provisions of scheme of administration applicable to the Institution. The contention therefore, is that the entire action of the District Inspector of Schools is mala-fide with a view to somehow the other to put the contesting respondents 3 and 4 to an advantage against the provisions of the scheme of administration. He therefore, submits that the District Inspector of Schools assumed a jurisdiction which he otherwise does not possess in relation of such a dispute of the Committee of Management.
Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 contends that a perusal of the order daed 29.8.2012 demonstrates that passing of the said order had become necessary on account of the alleged fraud and manipulation on the basis whereof the petitioner had succeeded in getting his signatures attested as the Manager of the Institution. He therefore, submits that the District Inspector of Schools after putting the petitioner to notice was fully satisfied where after he has passed the order which does not suffer from any infirmity much less a legal infirmity. He therefore, contends that even if it is assumed that such a dispute could be resolved by the Regional Level committee through the Joint Director of Education, then on the facts of this case, the District Inspector of Schools on having come to know of the allegations against the petitioner, was justified in proceeding with the matter which he has done after putting the petitioner to notice. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel further contends that the overall supervisory control is preserved in the Society which has established the Institution and, therefore, in an emergent situation, clause-IV of the Bye-lays can be invoked for superseding the management.
Replying to the said contention, Sri Shailendra submits that so far as the Society is concerned it has no control over the management and affairs of the Intermediate Colleges which are exclusively governed by the Scheme of Administration framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the District Inspector of Schools is empowered to attest the signatures for carrying out the executive business of the Institution and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools is under an obligation to determine as to who is a valid office bearer entitled to represent the Institution before the educational authorities. He therefore, contends that the District Inspector of Schools was well within his powers to have passed the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Standing Counsel whenever such a dispute relating to the officer bearers and elections of Committee of Management of Intermediate Colleges arise, the State has issued Government Orders distributing administration of such business between the educational authorities. The resolution of such disputes has therefore, been placed within the purview of a Regional Level committee headed by the Joint Director of Education.
In the opinion of the Court, if the District Inspector of Schools had been informed of any such dispute of an election held in the year 2011 then he should have referred the same to the Regional Level committee and should not have assumed jurisdiction himself. Apart from this an allegation of fraud or misrepresentation cannot be accepted as proved unless there is something to corroborate the same. In this case an application was filed on 21.7.2012 intimating the District Inspector of Schools about the availability of the documents with Sri Mukesh Kumar Maheshwari and Sri Sarvottam Sharma. These documents were in relation to the elections of 2011 on the basis whereof signatures of the petitioner were attested. The District Inspector of Schools, without further examining the matter and treating this reply to be irrelevant, passed impugned order on 29.8.2012.
In the opinion of the Court, such a course was not permissible under law and as a matter of fact the District Inspector of Schools could have probed the matter further taking an appropriate decision in the event he had the jurisdiction to do so. This exercise having not been undertaken the impugned order is unsustainable.
Thirdly, the issue in relation to the application of clause-IV of the Bye-laws by the District Inspector of Schools appears to have been entertained which may not be permissible as per the provisions of Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, read with the relevant provisions of the Scheme of the Administration itself that provide for ;an overriding effect to the Scheme in case of conflict between the by laws and the Scheme. The provisions of the Scheme have to prevail in view of the non distant clause of Section 16th of the 1921 Act. On this count also the District Inspector of Schools by passing the impugned order has occasioned failure of justice.
Accordingly, the order dated 29.8.2012 cannot be sustained. It is stated at the bar by Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel who has produced the letter dated 25.9.2012 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has vide order dated 5.9.2012 withdrawn the earlier order dated 4.9.2012. This may have been done to put Kaushal Kishore Sahu to an advantage, which cannot be permitted as the order dated 29.8.2012 is illegal.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the order impugned dated 29.8.2012 and all consequential orders including the attestation of signatures of Kaushal Kishore Sahu, are hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools, shall remit the entire records to the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education, within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order before him and Regional Level Committee shall thereafter proceed to decide the dispute keeping in view the objections raised by either side and the material that may be supplied by them on an opportunity being granted by the Regional Level Committee preferably within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of the records before him.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2012 Hasnain