Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.
The petitioner-Indrajeet Singh claiming himself to be the Manager of the Institution has come up questioning the correctness of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9th July, 2012 whereby the alleged No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner dated 30th October, 2011 has been accepted and the resolution removing him as a member of the General Body has been found to be valid.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sinha submits that the matter had been contested earlier in relation to the said no-confidence motion and the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 27th March, 2012 being Writ Petition No. 14549 of 2012. The District Inspector of Schools was called upon to examine the rival documents on which reliance was placed for proving the majority of 2/3rd members present and voting in the no confidence motion which is required under Clause 10(2) of the Scheme of Administration.
The petitioner's contention was that the requisite majority was not complete and only seven persons had signed the said alleged no-confidence motion whereas the respondents alleged that there were ten signatories to the said motion which was carried out in accordance with the majority of the existing number of the members and office bearers of the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools whereafter called upon the parties to adduce their evidence and has now passed the impugned order holding that the photostat copies as relied upon by the petitioner appear to be doubtful as there are three blank lines after the signatures of Madan Singh. He further recorded that as against this, the document filed by the respondents indicates the signatures of ten persons and there being no reason to disbelieve the same, the no confidence motion has been approved.
Sri Sinha for the petitioner has raised three submissions. Firstly, that the respondent no. 4-Amar Singh who was the Vice President of the Committee of Management was not authorized to convene the meeting of the Committee of Management in absence of the President. He has relied on the provisions of Clause 11 of the Scheme of Administration where it is prescribed that the Manager with the consent of the President shall call a meeting and in case this is not done then any six members of the Committee can requisition such a meeting which shall be held with the prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools. Sri Sinha submits that the convening of the meeting itself was invalid and therefore the same is vitiated.
His second contention is that the signatories were only seven in number and therefore they did not form 2/3rd majority quorum which is required under Clause 10(2) of the Scheme of Administration to pass a no confidence motion.
His third submission is that according to Clause 10(3) of the Scheme of Administration, there is no valid ratification of the said resolution by the members of the General Body and in the absence of any such ratification the alleged resolution of no confidence motion has lost its efficacy.
Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Khare, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools that three lines have been conspicuously shown blank raises a doubt about the probative value of the documents filed by the petitioner, is a finding of fact, and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
He further contends that the said finding is based on material on record and therefore even otherwise it cannot be termed as perverse. He further submits that once this is correct then the validity of the meeting cannot be questioned.
His reply to the first submission of Sri Sinha is that the Vice President of the Committee of Management steps into the shoes of the President in his absence and therefore he will be presumed to have been vested with the power to convene a meeting. As a natural corollary to his submissions he further contends that since the no-confidence motion was against the Manager himself there was no occasion for taking any consent from the Manager in relation to the convening of the meeting of no confidence motion. He further submits that the Vice President was duly authorized to convene the meeting and tabled the said motion in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.
With regard to the third submission of Sri Sinha, Sri Khare submits that the answering respondent had categorically raised this issue and had brought on record the resolution of the General Body ratifying the resolution of the Committee of Management by which the petitioner had been removed from his membership as well as from the office of Manager. He therefore submits that the impugned order does not require any interference.
Learned Standing Counsel also adopts the same arguments as Sri Khare. The counsel for the respondents including Sri Khare state that they do not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage as the entire material is on record for the purpose of adjudicating the controversy in the light of the submissions already raised by the petitioner.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed which has been taken on record whereby the petitioner has introduced the photocopies of the resolutions to contend that at every stage a different resolution was placed by the respondent. Sri Khare on the other hand has produced a copy of the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 16th July, 2012 to contend that even otherwise this entire writ petition has become infructuous as the last elections admittedly were held on 10th June, 2009 and the term having expired, the Joint Director of Education has passed an order appointing an authorized controller to hold fresh elections. He therefore submits that this exercise in relation to the continuance or otherwise of the petitioner as a manager does not survive. Learned Standing Counsel has also supported the said contention.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records a motion of no-confidence motion has to be brought about, through a meeting to be convened, by the Committee of Management in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. The meeting was admittedly convened by the Vice President and not by either the President or the Manager of the Institution. The reason for this appears to be that the President is alleged to have been already removed by way of a no confidence motion and the resolution which was to be tabled was against the Manager himself. The question is as to whether the Vice President could have convened the meeting for the purpose of carrying out the no-confidence motion.
A perusal of Clause 11 of the Scheme indicates that the meeting can be convened either by the Manager with the consent of President and if necessary six members of the Committee of Management can requisition such a meeting in writing which should disclose a specific agenda whereupon the same can be convened with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The provisions of the Scheme of Administration further provide under Clause 12 that in the absence of the President of the Committee of Management the Vice President shall be entitled to chair the meeting. The said provision under Clause 12 nowhere indicates that the Vice President will also be clothed with the power of calling a meeting of the Committee of Management. In this view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the meeting had not been validly convened deserves to be accepted and therefore the convening of the meeting on 30th October, 2011 is held to be contrary to the aforesaid provisions as indicated hereinabove.
Apart from this even assuming for the sake of arguments that the meeting could have been convened by the Vice President. Clause 10(3) of the Scheme of Administration requires that a no-confidence motion has to be ratified by the General Body. The contesting respondent as pointed out by Sri Khare claims to have got the said resolution ratified which was also placed before the District Inspector of Schools. Unfortunately, the District Inspector of Schools has not adverted to this issue at all and has not recorded any finding inspite of the same having been raised by the contesting parties. In such circumstances the order of the District Inspector of Schools cannot be sustained.
The third argument relating to the signatories on the resolution need not be gone into by this Court being a question of fact, all the more, as the term of the earlier committee has already run out. In the circumstances, so far as the resolution depriving the petitioner of his membership is concerned the same being contrary to the scheme of administration as noted hereinabove stands annulled. The petitioner's membership is therefore upheld.
So far as the issue relating to the passing of the no-confidence motion is concerned the same also looses its efficacy in the light of the subsequent events as pointed out by Sri Khare that the authorized controller has already been appointed to hold fresh elections.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9th July, 2012 is quashed. However, allowing of this petition shall in no way effect the order passed by the Joint Director of Education on 16th July, 2012 whereby directions have been issued to hold fresh elections through the authorized controller. The elections shall now be held as per the aforesaid order.
Dated: 18.07.2012 Sahu