Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Sri G.K. Singh appears on behalf of respondent no.4 and Sri A.K. Singh on behalf of respondent no.2. Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent no.1.
The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that there is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the name of Saltanat Bahadur Degree College Association, Badlapur, Jaunpur. It has its own bye-laws. The said Society has established a Post Graduate Degree College in the name of Saltanat Bahadur Post Graduate College at Badlapur, Jaunpur. The said College is affiliated with Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and is governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Under the bye-laws of the Society and the College, the term of the committee of management was three years. The last election of the committee of management was held on 3.3.2008. In the said election, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh was elected as the President and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh as the Manager. The said election has been duly approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University by the order dated 6.5.2008. The approval was accorded to the committee of management for the period of three years from the date of holding of the election. There is no dispute in this regard.
By an agenda notice dated 30.6.2010, a meeting of the general body of the Society was scheduled to be convened on 25.7.2010. The meeting was held on 25.7.2010. In the meeting, it was decided that an amendment in the bye-laws of the Society by specifying the term of the committee of management to five years in place of three years be made. In pursuance thereof, the amendment has been incorporated in the bye-laws and the amended bye-laws has been submitted before the Assistant Registrar. The intimation of the amendment for approval was given to the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Vice Chancellor by his order dated 16.11.2010 directed that the committee of management elected on 2.3.2008 stood recognised for the period of five years, that is, till 1.3.2013.
Subsequently, a complaint was filed by one Sri Prakash Singh and Shiv Shanker Singh Om before the Vice Chancellor of the University, disputing the extension of the term of the committee of management from three years to five years. The Registrar of the University issued a notice dated 7.6.2011 to the petitioners. The said notice was followed by a reminder dated 3.8.2011. The petitioners filed the reply dated 8.8.2011.
It appears that Shiv Shanker Singh Om and others filed Writ Petition No. 49556 of 2011 before this Court. Said writ petition was disposed of on 30.8.2011 with the direction to the Vice Chancellor to take a final decision in pursuance of the notice. As a consequence thereof, the University issued a notice on 18.10.2011 fixing 31.10.2011 as the date for hearing before the Vice Chancellor. The petitioners filed the objection dated 24.10.2011. After hearing the parties, the Vice Chancellor passed the impugned order dated 16.11.2011/25.11.2011.
The Vice Chancellor relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, passed in the Special Appeal No. 1709 of 2007, in the case of Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College, Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P. and others, has held that the benefit of amendment in Clause 8 of the scheme of administration will not be available to the existing committee of management, which has amended the bye-laws and the amended Clause 8 will be applicable to the newly formed committee of management after the election and observed that the letter dated 16.11.2010 stands amended to this effect. The order of the Vice Chancellor, dated 16.11.2011, is impugned in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the Vice Chancellor has accepted the term of the existing committee of management from three years upto 1.3.2013, he has no power to review its own order. He submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College, Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) was on different facts. It was with regard to a dispute under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 and in the said decision, the order of the approval of the amendment with the condition that the same would apply to the committee of management, which would be constituted after the election being held after the amendment in the bye-laws, has been held justified. The decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in other cases is also of the same effect. He submitted that once the amendment has been made in the bye-laws, it became effective from the date of the amendment and is, therefore, applicable to the existing committee of management also. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, MMI Inter College, Bijnore vs. Deputy Director of Education and others, reported in 1994 (24) ALR 410 wherein it has been held that the amendment introduced in the existing scheme of administration takes effect immediately. Although it is not retrospective in operation, but the term of the committee has to be calculated in accordance with it. He submitted that till date said decision has not been over-ruled. He also placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Committee of Management, Baheri Education Society, Baheri, Bareilly and others vs. Director of Education and others, reported in (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1107.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College, Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), has categorically laid down the law in Paragraph 30 of the judgment that the committee of management, which is elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration must be permitted to continue only for the term, which was applicable at the time of the election. The extension of the term, so provided by seeking permission of its own term and by suggesting amendments in the scheme of administration cannot be approved of by this Court. Therefore, the order of the Vice Chancellor is legally correct. He submitted that in the case of Committee of Management, MMI Inter College, Bijnore vs. Deputy Director of Education and others (supra), the term of the committee of management has been curtailed, which was against their own interest and on this background, the Division Bench has held that the term of the existing committee of management has to be calculated in accordance to the amendment.
I have considered the rival submissions and various decisions referred by both the sides.
In my view, there is a conflict of opinion between the two Division Benches. Whether by the amendment, the term is curtailed or enhanced is not relevant. The relevant question is from which date, the amendment becomes effective and whether it applies to the existing committee of management or to the committee of management, which will be formed after the next election. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Committee of Management, MMI Inter College, Bijnore vs. Deputy Director of Education and others (supra), has categorically held that the amendment introduced in the existing scheme takes effect immediately. Although it is not retrospective in operation, but the term of the committee of management has to be calculated in accordance with it. To the contrary, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College, Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), has held as follows:-
"Even otherwise, we feel that it is appropriate and it is fitness of things that the Committee of Management, which is elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration must be permitted to continue only for the term, which was applicable at the time of the elections. The extension of the term so provided by seeking permission of its own term and by suggesting amendments in the scheme of administration cannot be approved of by this Court..."
In view of the two conflicting views of the Division Benches of this Court, I am of the opinion that the matter should be referred to the Larger Bench for decision on the following two questions:-
(1) Whether the amendment will become effective from the date of the amendment?
And (2) Whether the amendment, extending the term of the committee of management, will apply to the existing committee of management, which has made the amendment or it applies to the committee of management which will be formed after the election being held after the amendment?
Let the papers be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for formation of the Larger Bench.
22.12.2011 bgs/-