JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.11.1997 passed by Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), XIVth Region, Azamgarh, holding that the election of office bearers and members of the Committee of Management alleged to have been held on 24.9.1995 was invalid and contrary to the provisions of scheme of administration and further appointing the District Inspector of Schools as Prabandh Sanchalak of Adarsh Intermediate College, Slwan Kala, Slkanderpur, district Ballla (for short 'the College') and directing him to hold the election of the Committee of Management within 2 months.
2. The facts of the case as set out in the writ petition. In brief, are that it was on 28.6.1992 that the election of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the institution was held in which petitioner No. 2 Shrl Ashok was elected as Manager and Sri Sadhu Saran Goswaml as President, besides other office bearers and members. The District Inspector of Schools on receipt of the papers relating to the said election accorded recognition to the Committee of Management elected in the aforesaid election and attested the signatures of the Manager vide Order dated 13.10.1992.
3. It was on 18.6.1995 that the Committee of Management passed a resolution directing the President and the Manager to appoint the election officer and to hold the election before 30.9.1995. The relevant papers Including the aforesaid resolution were submitted before the District Inspector of Schools for information and necessary action on 19.6.1995. The Manager, thereafter, vide letter dated 6.7.1995 Intimated the District Inspector of Schools that 24.9.1995 was the dated fixed for the aforesaid election. The programme of the election was also sent to him along with the said date. Thereafter, the election which is stated to have been held on 24.9.1995 in which 29 out of 44 members of the General Body of the college participated and petitioner No. 2 was elected as the Manager besides other office bearers. After declaration of the result of the said election, relevant papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools on 25.9.1995 with the request to accord recognition to the said election and to attest the signatures of the Manager.
4. On the other hand, respondent No. 3 is stated to have applied for Initiating the proceedings for holding the election as the term of the Committee of Management came to an end on 8.2.1996. Thereafter another similar application was made by respondent No. 3 on 15.2.1996 before the respondent No. 2. The District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 7.4.1996 asked the petitioners to submit the original record relating to election held on 24.9.1995 before him. It is stated that instead of original record, photostat copies of all relevant papers were furnished by the petitioners to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools instead of according approval to the Committee of Management elected on 24.9.1995 placed the accounts of the college under single operation by order dated 23.5.1996. The petitioners and other members of the general body thereafter made representations to the District Inspector of Schools and also to the Joint Director of Education in support of the election held on 24.9.1995. ,The District Inspector of Schools, thereafter, recalled the order dated 23.5.1996 vide order dated 19.7.1996 recognising the Committee of Management and attested the signatures of the petitioner No. 2. Challenging the validity of the order dated 19.7.1996, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28371 of 1996 was filed by the Society through one Shri Shambhu Nath Rai, the Secretary. The said writ petition was disposed of finally with the observation that if the petitioners of the said writ petition make a representation to the District Inspector of Schools, he shall decide the same within one month. The Assistant District Inspector of Schools is also stated to have passed the order dated 25.9.1996 directing the salary accounts of the college to be operated Jointly. Challenging the validity of the said order Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33227 of 1996 was filed but the same was dismissed summarily with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation made by the respondent No. 3. In the meanwhile, the District Inspector of Schools was transferred and another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 692 of 1997 was filed in which this Court vide order dated 27.1.1997 directed the Dy. Director of Education, XIVth Region, Azamgarh, to decide the representation filed by respondent No. 3. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below :
"The Deputy Director of Education, respondent No. 1 shall pass an appropriate order himself on the representation of the petitioner unless any other person is entitled to decide the dispute in regard to the Committee of Management in absence of the District Inspector of Schools. Ballla, respondent No. 1 shall pass the order within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and a true copy of the writ petition."
5. The respondent No. 1 on 14.3.1997 appointed the authorised controller to manage the affairs of the college and to hold the election. The validity of the said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10395 of 1997. The said writ petition was ultimately heard along with Writ Petition No. 692 of 1997. The order dated 14.3.1997 was quashed and a direction was Issued to the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation within 3 weeks. The operative portion of the said Judgment is quoted below :
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the matter has been lingered on. Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh, is directed to decide the representation (supra) within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and true copy of this writ petition before him. The parties concerned shall file documents before him within ten days from today including representation/objection/affidavits. Parties concerned shall be permitted to exchange their documents. In view of the above, the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 14.3.1997 mentioned in Writ Petition No. 10395 of 1997, is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
6. The matter was thereafter heard by the Dy. Director of Education and ultimately impugned order dated 1.11.1997 was passed, the validity of which has been challenged in the present petition. On behalf of the contesting respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed, in reply of which respondent No. 4 has filed counter-affidavit controverting the facts in the writ petition and asserted that the election dated 24.9.1995 was Invalid and the same was not held by a competent committee or authority. In reply of the said counter-affidavit, the petitioners have also filed rejoinder-affidavit in which the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated and reasserted. Since the counter and rejoinder-affidavit were exchanged, I have heard this case finally.
7. Mr. P. N. Saksena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently urged that the steps for holding the election of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the college were taken well within the time prescribed for in the scheme of administration and the election was ultimately held with the permission of District Inspector of Schools, therefore, even if the election was held beyond the time prescribed, i.e., 3 years and one month, the same cannot be said to be invalid. The view taken to the contrary by the respondent No. I was illegal and erroneous. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the following decisions :
(i) 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1542.
(ii) 199? (1) UPLBEC 412.
(iii) 1997 (1) ESC 407.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the validity of order dated 1.11.1997 and asserted that the writ petition merits dismissal.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the case.
10. The respondent No. 1 has recorded clear and categorical findings against the petitioners, which are based on relevant evidence on the record and ultimately it has been held that the election dated 24.9.1995 was not held in accordance with the provisions of approved scheme of administration of the college. One of the aforesaid findings is to the effect that election dated 24.9.1995 was held beyond the period prescribed under the scheme of administration and the same was not held by and under the supervision of Authorised Controller, therefore, the same was Invalid. Admittedly, the last but one election of the Committee of Management was held on 28.6.1992 in which Sri Ashok, petitioner No. 2 was elected as the Manager and one Sri Sadhu Saran Goswami as President of the Committee of Management of the college. The aforesaid election was recognised by the District Inspector of Schools, vide order dated 13.10.1992.
11. It is well-settled in law that the term of the Committee of Management runs from the date of declaration of the result of election. The term of the Committee of Management was three years and one month, as it is evident from the scheme of administration. The relevant clause of which is quoted below :
^^izcU/k lfefr dk dk;Zdky&inkf/kdkjh ,oa lfefr ds lnL;ksa dk dk;Zdky rhu o"kZ dk gksxk dk;Z vof/k lekIr gks tkus ij vxys ,d ekg rd gh inkf/kdkjh cus jg ldsaxsaA ;fn rhu o"kZ ds ckn ,d ekg ds vanj u, p;fur lfefr dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha djrh rks rhu o"kZ ,d ekg ds ckn dkykrhr lfefr dk dk;Zdky Lor% lekIr le>k tk;sxkA ftls izca/kkf/kdj.k ds iw.kZ vf/kdkj gksaxsA ;g izca/k lapkyd uo p;fur lfefr dks 'kh?kzkrh'kh?kz dk;Zjr djk;sxk vkSj ;fn izca/k lfefr;ksa esa vf/kdkj dk nkok gS rks ftlds i{k esa laHkkxh; f'k{kk mifuns'kd] okjk.klh dk fu.kZ; gksxk mls dk;Zjr djk;sxkA** From the aforesaid clause of the scheme of administration, it is evident that on expiry of its term ; i.e., on expiry of 3 years and one month, the Committee of Management shall automatically ceases to exist.
12. In the present case, three years and one month elapsed on 28.7.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that steps for holding the election were taken by the petitioners within the time prescribed under the scheme of administration. It was on account of inaction on the part of District Inspector of Schools and other intervening facts that there was some delay in holding the election, therefore, the election dated 24.9.1995, in view of the law laid down by this Court fn view of the cases referred to and relied upon above cannot be held to be invalid.
13. Decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Ale Ahmad Girls Inter College and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10869 of 1996, decided on 15.11.1996 and decision in Committee of Management v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Azamgarh, appear to have been given on the facts of those cases in the said cases after the impugned elections were held. Challenging the validity of the said elections, suits were filed in the civil court during the period of interregnum. The Committees were recognised for administrative purposes only. This Court, therefore, was pleased to hold that the recognition granted by the District Inspector of Schools was subject to the result of the suit, therefore, this Court declined to interfere in the matter.
14. I am constrained to say that the said decisions do not lay down law correctly. They are in the teeth of several decisions rendered by the Division Benches of this Court to the contrary. The consistent view taken by this Court is that on expiry of the term, i.e., 3 years one month, the Committee of Management ceases to exist and the said Committee becomes non-existent and that election, thereafter, can only be held by Authorised Controller appointed by the Deputy Director of Education and not otherwise.
15. Recently, the said question came to be considered before another Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 396 of 1996 decided on October 22, 1997. The provisions of the scheme of administration in the said case were analogous to the provisions of scheme of administration, in the present case. Mr. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner himself appeared for the appellant in the aforesaid case and submitted that since the elections in question were held with the approval of District Inspector of Schools, therefore, the same should not be held to be illegal and invalid merely on the ground that the Committees of Management which held those elections had not been duly elected. The Division Bench referred to the following decisions one Prithvi Pal Tripathi v. District Inspector of School, Jaunpur and others, 1993 All CJ 158 ; Committee of Management, Sri Gandhi Inter College v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, 1989 ALJ 214 ; Committee of Management, Sri Krishna Inter College, Nibari, Ghaztabad and another u. District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, 1991 All CJ 234 : Ham Kripal Singh and another v. Committee of Management, Uchchattar Madhyamik Vldyalaya, Newarhlya. District Jaunpur and others, (1993) 1 UPLBEC 344 and Committee of Management, Brig. Hoshtar Singh Memorial Inter College, Shamlt and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Ist Region, Meerut and others, 1994 ESC 323 (All). After examining the aforesaid decision, this Court was pleased to rule as under :
"Testing the case in hand on the touch-stone of the well-accepted principles laid down in the aforementioned decided cases, the position that emerges is that after the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2375 of 1983 on 1991 as infructuous the fresh election was to be held only by a Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Deputy Director of Education of the concerned region. The Committee of Management, whose election had been declared to be Illegal and invalid by the Joint Director of Education and whose term of office had come to an end, had no authority to hold such election. Indisputably, the election said to have been held on 8.2.1992 was not held by the Prabandh Sanchalak but was allegedly held by the Committee of Management with Sri Kuldeep Slngh as President and Sri Jang Bahadur Singh as Manager. Therefore, the election was Illegal and the Committee of Management said to have been elected in that election was invalid."
16. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is abundantly clear that the moment 3 years and one month, the term of the Committee of Management was over, the Committee, if election has not been held within aforesaid time, becomes non-existent. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if the steps are being taken within the aforesaid time and for some reason or the other, the election is not held and is held thereafter within a reasonable time, that too with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools, the same cannot be held invalid is not acceptable to me for the reason that the Committee of Management, once becomes non-existent has got no right whatsoever either to conduct election or to deal with or Interfere in the affairs of the college in any manner. Further, the question what should be the reasonable time after expiry of the term of the Committee of Management for holding the election shall differ from case to case. There may be hundreds of reasons for not holding the election, the delay may be of few days, few months or years, no test of reasonability can be laid down. It may be advertent or Inadvertent, the scheme of administration of the Institution in question, referred to above does not provide for relaxation of the term in any manner on any ground.
17. The clause of the scheme of administration, which provides for the term of the Committee of Management, referred to above is quite clear and unambiguous. It clearly provides that on expiry of three years and one month, the Committee of Management shall cease to exist and the election of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management thereafter could be held only under the control and supervision of the Authorised Controller appointed by the Deputy Director of Education for the said purpose.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not acceptable to me. No case for Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition falls and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.