Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19409 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Madanpur Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh,Shri H.N. Singh (Sr Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vashishtha Tiwari
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. With their consent, the instant writ petition is being decided finally, without inviting a formal counter affidavit, and also without issuing notice to the fourth respondent, the Authorised Controller, who is only a formal party.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 9.5.2018 by which it had cancelled the order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, recognising election of Committee of Management of Madanpur Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Madanpur, Firozabad, a recognised Institution under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and co-option of petitioner No. 2 as Manager for the remaining term consequent to death of Sunehri Lal, the Manager.
Writ C No. 21811 of 2017 was filed before this Court by the petitioner Committee of Management, through Arvind Kumar (President) assailing an order dated 3.5.2017 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad revoking an earlier order dated 7.10.2016 approving elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 16.9.2016. Another Writ C No. 35607 of 2017 was filed through petitioner No. 2 herein, challenging the order dated 20.7.2017 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, appointing Authorised Controller in the Institution.
The undisputed fact is that one Sunehri Lal was the Manager in the Committee of Management of the Institution elected on 16.9.2016.
His signatures, as such, was attested on 7.10.2016. Later on, he died. Petitioner No. 2 claims that he was op-opted as Manager in his place. The main ground on which the order dated 3.5.2017 passed by District Inspector of Schools was subjected to challenge was that it was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This Court taking notice of the fact that Sunehri Lal had admittedly died, refused to adjudge the validity of order dated 3.5.2017 by which District Inspector of Schools has revoked the order passed earlier attesting his signatures. However, this Court further observed that the District Inspector of Schools, though has held that election dated 16.9.2016 is not being recognised, but there has been no adjudication in regard to the validity of the said election. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools to consider the claim of petitioner No. 2 regarding co-option on the post of Manager, after the death of Sunehri Lal. It was further observed that in case, the District Inspector of Schools finds that issue relating to validity of election dated 16.9.2016 was required to be gone into, it shall be open to him to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee. This Court permitted the Authorised Controller to work in the meantime. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Inspector of Schools proceeded to pass an order dated 1.12.2017 by which election held on 16.9.2016 was recognised by returning a finding that there is no membership dispute and election dated 16.9.2016 was held from the General Body of the Society. The District Inspector of Schools also noticed the fact that the dispute in Writ Petition No. 39298 of 2012 instituted before this Court was in regard to passing of No Confidence Motion against the Manager and Deputy Manager. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22.8.2012 and in compliance of the direction issued by this Court, the Prescribed Authority by order dated 12.6.2017 has already decided the reference. It was observed that the adjudication made by the Prescribed Authority regarding passing of no-confidence motion against the then Manager and Deputy Manager has no significance in so far as election dated 16.9.2016 is concerned. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools approved the election dated 16.9.2016 and rescinded his earlier order dated 3.5.2017. Thereafter, he also attested the signature of petitioner No. 2 as Manager. The case of the petitioners is that on basis of the order of District Inspector of Schools attesting signatures of petitioner No. 2, the petitioners are in effective control of the affairs of the Institution.
It seems that thereafter a complaint was filed by respondent No. 5 before the Joint Director of Education and taking cognizance of the same, a report was called for from the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools by communication dated 3.5.2017 submitted his comments and thereafter, the Regional Level Committee proceeded to decide the complaint filed by respondent No. 5. The Regional Level Committee in its impugned order has held that the Prescribed Authority by order dated 12.6.2012, has invalidated the meeting dated 22.4.2012 in which Manager and Deputy Manager namely, Rajendra Tiwari and Subhash Chandra (respondent No. 5) respectively were expelled. The impugned order proceeds to hold that as a result of the meeting dated 22.4.2012 having been invalidated, the Committee of Management elected on 16.9.2016 cannot be recognised. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 1.12.2017 has been cancelled and the Authorised Controller has been directed to assume charge.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue relating to expulsion or passing of no confidence motion against the Manager and Deputy Manager in the meeting dated 22.4.2012 has lost its significance inasmuch as, a fresh election had been held on 16.9.2016. He further submitted that in the said meeting dated 22.4.2012, Rajendra Tiwari, the then Manager and Subhash Chandra, the then Deputy Manager were expelled from the post they were holding, but their membership was not ceased. They continued to be members of the General Body of the Society. In such capacity, they were entitled to participate in the election. Thus, even if the adjudication made by the Prescribed Authority in regard to meeting dated 22.4.2012 is accepted as correct, it would not alter the constitution of the General Body, as the resolution dated 22.4.2012 does not affect the membership of any person. It is submitted that conclusion arrived at by the Regional Level Committee that election dated 16.9.2016 was not held from valid members of the General Body solely on the basis of adjudication made by the Prescribed Authority is thus, wholly illegal and unwarranted.
Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 26.4.2012 attested the signatures of the then Manager, Sunehri Lal for the period up to 13.9.2016. It is submitted that the instant election having taken place on 16.9.2016, was thus not valid. However, he does not dispute that there is no such adjudication in the impugned order. He further submitted that since no confidence motion passed against the respondent No. 5 in meeting dated 22.4.2012 has been declared invalid by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 12.6.2017, therefore, the election held on 16.9.2016 was not by the person competent to hold such election. Again he very fairly accepts that there is no such adjudication in the impugned order nor the election dated 16.9.2016 has been invalidated on the said ground. He is also not in a position to dispute that even after passing of no confidence motion against respondent No. 5 in meeting dated 22.4.2012, his membership in the General Body remained intact, therefore, the ground on which the impugned order has been passed is not sustainable.
Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that the matter be remitted back to the Regional Level Committee for deciding these issues, to which Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 9.5.2018 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for deciding the controversy afresh in the light of the observations made above. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further clarified that until decision is taken by the Regional Level Committee, the Authorised Controller appointed by the impugned order shall continue, and thereafter, it shall abide by the decision, which would be taken by the Regional Level Committee.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 28.5.2018 AM/-