ORDER
1. Present petition is directed against an order dated 22-9-1993 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakhpur in exercise of powers under Section 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (In short 'the Act').
2. Section 16A(7) of the Act postulates that whenever there is dispute with respect to management of an institution person found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may for prupsoes of the Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such Institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. According to the proviso to sub-section (7), the Regional Deputy Director of Education, before making an order under this sub-section is to afford a reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing. The explanation appended to the sub-section aforesaid provides that for determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the Institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the scheme of administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances.
3. The question for determination before the Regional Deputy Director of Education was whether the Committee of Management allegedly constituted on 11-8-1991 or the Comittee of Management said to have been constituted on 20-10-1991, was in effective control of the affairs of the institution within the meaning of Section 16A(7) for the purposes of the said Act ? By means of the impugned order, the Regional Deputy Director Education has, for purposes of the Act, recognised the Committee of Management constituted on 11-8-1991 as against the one constituted on 20-10-1991, which has not been adjudged to be in actual control of the affairs of the Institution.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the finding on the question of actual control of the affairs of the Institution as recorded by the Regional Deputy Director of Education stands vitiated in that, proceeds that argument, it has its genesis in fallacious, erroneous and incorrect assumption as to validity of the disputed Committee of Managment allegedly constituted on 11-8-1991. The learned counsel urged that the list of 112 members submitted on behalf of the petitioner was erroneously rejected by the Regional Deputy Director of Education as uncertified and not proved without adverting to receipt book showing payment of membership fee by 112 persons; the cash book showing deposit of Rs. 2111/- as total membership fee of 112 members; and the passbook in which a sum of Rs. 2111/- was shown to have been credited to Account No. 547 and non-application of mind, it was urged, to the afore-stated documents as to enrolment of 112 members to the General Body and erroneous acceptance of the list of 40 members submitted by the contesting respondent as validly enrolled members, vitiated the finding on question of validity of the disputed elections as recorded by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the finding on question of actual control is vitiated on yet another count namely, by reasons of the fact that the Regional Deputy Driector of Education has erroneously assumed that the specimen signatures of Shyam Shanker Singh were attested to by the District Inspector of Schools.
5. In reply to the submissions aforesaid, Sri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 urged that no evidence demonstrative of the fact that 112 alleged members had been enlisted as members of the roll of General Body prior to 11-8-1991 was brought forth to the notice of the Regional Deputy Director of Education and, therefore, urged the learned Counsel for the respondent, the Regional Deputy Director of Education cannot be attributed to have committed any error in discarding the alleged membership of 112 members and in any case, submitted the learned counsel for the respondent, the Regional Deputy Director of Education having recorded a categorical finding on the question of actual control in favour of the respondent Committee of Management, the impugned order cannot be interferred with by this Court under Article 226 of the Const, of India, particularly because the petitioners have alternative remedy by way of a suit as comprehended by Section 16A(7) of the Act itself.
6. With a view to meticulously appreciating the rival contentions, the nature and scope of 'enquiry' comprehended by subsection (7) of Section 16A of the Act may first by analysed. The said provision as already noticed, empowers the Regional Deputy Director of Education to accord recognition for the purposes of the Act to persons found by him in actual control of the affairs of an Institution as constituting the Committee of Management of such institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise.
7. The object of 'enquiry' under Section 16A(7) of the Act is to get at truth and to expose the falsity of one of the rival claimants of being in actual control of the affairs of the Institution and since 'actual control' within the meaning of sub-section (7) does not admit of control by rank outsiders, the Regional Dy.
Director of Education, has, of necessity, to examine the question as to whether the Committee of Management seeking recognition for the purposes of the Act, is constituted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration.
8. The object and purpose of enactment of sub-section (7) of Section 16A is to provide a forum for resolution of disputes with respect to the Management of an Institution on the basis of 'actual control' upon such 'enquiry' as may be deemed fit by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The underlying object in according recognition to persons found in 'actual control' as constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution is that the normal functioning of the Institution may not be disturbed/impeded. It goes without saying that the managerial dispute is bound to visit not only upon the discipline amongst the teachers but also upon the academic tempo of the institution as a whole.
9. The Regional Deputy Director of Education is however, not to act as a Court or tribunal in that he is not supposed to adjudicate upon the dispute between the two rival claimants conclusively that is why the provision has been made under sub-section (7) to enable the Regional Deputy Director of Education to untangle the dispute with respect to management of the Institution on the basis of such 'enquiry' as may be deemed fit and the decision is to hold good until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. 'Enquiry' comprehended by sub-section (7) cannot be equated with the trial of a suit which task is expressly left for the court of a competent jurisdiction. All that is required is that the Regional Deputy Director of Education should satisfy himself, with reference to valid material placed before him, is one of the rival claimants is in actual control of the affairs of the Institution. It is immaterial whether the function of the Regional Dy. Director of Education is administrative or quasi-judicial in nature for the distinction between two is for all practical purposes negligible. In determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the Institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education is required to have regard to the control over the funds of the Institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the scheme of administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances and to act in consonance with the rules of natural justice as comprehended in its multi-faceted aspects. The Regional Dy. Director of Education, in my opinion, is not to act as a court or tribunal and meticulously examine the intrinsic qualities and evidentiary value of the material placed before him. That task, as noticed above, is left for the court of competent jurisdiction to be performed and that being so it would be outside the scope and ambit of enquiry comprehended by sub-section (7) of Section 16A to meticulously examine the validity of election.
10. It is true as held in Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Thikna Bijauli District Azamgarh v. Dy. Director of Education, 7th Region Gorakhpur, 1982 UPLBEC 38; the Committee of Management Baiakt Vatsal Inter College Bichhua District Manipuri v. Regional Dy. Director of Education, Agra, 1988 UPLBEC 402; (1988 All LJ 1023} the Committee of Management Maha-tma Gandhi Inter College Madhupura District Farrukhabad v. Dy. Director of Education, Kanpur Region Kanpur, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1042, reliance on which was placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the question of actual control of the management of an Institution is inextricably linked with the validity of the election of the Committee of management and the Dy. Director of Education has, of necessity, to go over the question of the validity of such election, but the correct legal position, as it emerges from the true purport and import of Section 16A(7) of the Act, is that both the question of actual control of the affairs of the Institution and the question of validity of the election of the Committee of Management are really inter-linked and interwoven with the ultimate question as to recognition of the Committee of Management for the purposes of the Act. It may however, be observed that the scope of enquiry as to the validity of election of the Committee of Management is limited to prima-facie satisfaction of the Regional Deputy Director of Education about the validity of the election. I am in respectful agreement with the view expresed by S.C. Varma, J., in the case of committee of Management Mahatma Gandhi Inter College Madhupura, District Farukhabad (supra) that the Regional Deputy Director of Education has not to act as a court or tribunal in strict sense of the term and all that he is to do is to prima facie satisfy himself about the validity of election upon such enquiry as he may deem fit.
11. A resume of facts of the case may also, be delineated before retreating into the merits of the submissions advanced at the bar. It transpires from the record that the erstwhile Committe of Management was constituted on 22-8-1988. Sri Awadh Narain Tripathi was elected as 'Adhyaksh' and Sri Ram Vilas Pandey as its Manager. The specimen signatures of Sri Ram Vilas Pandey as Manager were attested by the District Inspector of Schools but it appears that he demitted the office as Manager of the Institution and the Adhyaksh Sri Awadh Narain Tripathi was entrusted with the duties of Manager as well in addition to his own duties as 'Adhyaksh vide resolution dated 5-4-1989 of the Committee of Management. The signautre of Sri Awadh Narain Tripathi as Manager was attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 16-5-1989. Subsequently, however, Sri Shyam Sunder Singh was elected as Manager on 2-7-1989 and his specimen signatures as Manager attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 7-7-1989. The term of the Management Committee constituted on 22-8-1988 was to expire on 21-8-1989 and the process of election is said to have commenced well in time by means of the letter dated 3-7-1991 whereby the District Inspector of Schools was informed that 11-8-1991 had been fixed for the election of the Committee of Management and he was accordingly requested by means of the said letter to appoint an Observer for election and on 31-7-1991 a list of 40 members of the General Body was presented to the District Inspector of Schools for information. One Sri Vishwanath Prasad was appointed by the. Distirct inspector of Schools as Observer and the meeting of the General Body, it is said, was held as scheduled on 11-8-1991 in which the election of the Committee of Management was unanimously held and Sri Hans Nath Tiwari was elected as 'Adhyaksh and Sri Shyam Sunder Singh as the Manager. Information was sent to the District Inspector of Schools.
12. However, pending consideration of the matter by the District Inspector of Schools for purposes of according recogni tion to the Committee of Management constituted on 11-8-1991, Sri Shyam Sunder Singh died and in his place one Narendra Singh was elected by the Committed of Management as its Manager vide resolution dated 11-12-1991. The District Inspector of Schools after calling for certain information vide letter dated 7-1-1992, attested the singna-
tures of Sri Narendra Singh as Manager on 6-3-1992. But since Sri Narendra Singh was disqualified for being elected as Manager owing to the fact that he happened to be a teacher in a college, the District Inspector of Schools, on coming to know of the fact aforesaid, by his order dated 16-3-1992, stayed the operation of attestation of signa tures of Sri Narendra Singh.The Committee of Management then passed another resolu tion 22-3-1992 whereby Sri Raghuveridra Kumar Singh was elected as Manager in place of Sri Narendra Singh and specimen signature of Sri Raghuvendra Singh were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 8-4-1992 and by order dated 28-4-1992, the District Inspector of Schools withdrew/ recal led an earlier order dated 2-1-1992 passed by him under the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.
13. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the Regional Deputy Director of Education has believed the report submitted by the Observer Sri Vishanath Prasad and on that basis, the Dy. Director of Education lent credence to the list of 40 members submitted to the District Inspector of Schools Vide letter dated 21-7-1991. The petitioner Committee of Management which is said to have been elected on 20-10-1991, was not taken cognizance of by the District Inspector of Schools and accordingly, he had refused to attest the signatures of Sri Chandra Bhan Singh vide order contained in letter dated 11-5-1992. The list of 112 members submitted by the petitioner-Committee of Management has been discarded by the Regional Dy. Director of Education.
14. The question that requires to be considered is whether the finding recorded by the Regional Deputy Director of Education as to validity of the election held on 11-8-1991 is vitiated so as to vitiate the ultimate conclusion culminating in recognition of the respondent-Committee of Management.
15. That the erstwhile Committee of Managment with Sri Shyam Sunder Singh was lawfully in effective control of the affairs of the Institution, cannot be doubted nor can it be held in question, in the wake of the facts stated in the impugned order, that the respondent-Committee has come to be in actual control of the affairs of the Institution after expiry of the terms or erstwhile Committee of Management. The finding recorded by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on this score is a finding of fact based on assessment of materials on record and, in my opinion, does, pot wear any taint of infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Const, of India. But the status of a Committee" of Management not lawfully elected in accordance with the scheme of administration can be no better than that of rank outsiders. As noticed hereinbefore, 'actual control' within the meaning of Section 16A(7) of the Act does not admit of control of the affairs of the Institution by rank outsiders, the question as to validity of election of the Committee of Management, in the context of Section 16A(7) of the Act, is actually intertwined with the ultimate decision according recognition to one group or the other as the Committee of Management of the Institution for the purposes of the Act. Section 16A(7) in its true purport and import, therefore, comprehends recognition of the Committee of Management, for the purposes of the Act. Committee of Management for the purposes of the Act only on fulfilment of the twin conditions of the Committee of Management being in actual control of the affairs of the Institution and of being validly elected in accordance with the scheme of administration.
16. The ultimate decision of the Regional Deputy Director of Education recognising the respondent-Committee of Management however, cannot be sustained if it is discovered that the respondent-Committee of Management was not lawfully elected in accordance with the scheme of administration.
17. It transpires from the perusal of the impugned order that list of 112 members, being relied upon by the petitioner-Chandra Bhan Singh does not include the 40 members, who according to Raghuvendra Singh -- the Manager of the respondent-Committee of Management -- were the only genuine and bona fide members of the General Body entitled to elect the Committee of Management. The impugned order also divulges that the 46 members who according to Raghuvendra Singh were the only members of the General Body were given no notice or intimation of meeting held on 20-10-1991 and similarly the 112 members who according to petitioner Chandra Bhan Singh were the only , members of the General Body were not at all notified about the meeting held on 11-8-1991 in which the respondent-Committee of Management is said to have been elected. The decision on the question as to who were the lawfully enrolled members of the Society is bound to bear on the decision as to validity of the election of the Committee of Management.
18. According to petitioners all the 112 members were enrolled by Shyam Sunder Singh himself in 1991-92 whose membership fee was deposited in the college account, on 16-10-1991 and they alone were eligible and apt to elect the Committee of Management. It was further alleged by the petitioners that Raghuvendra Singh and other members of the Committee of Management were not at all enrolled as members of the society and that 40 members who arc said to have elected the respondent-Committee of Management had, in fact, no nexus with the society.
19. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has reckoned with the afore-stated rival contentions of the parties in the impugned order and returned the following findings:
(Matter in vernacular -- Omitted Ed.) If the finding on the question of validity of membership is vitiated, it would rebound on to vitiate the finding on the question of validity of the election. It is evident that the finding on the question of membership to the society is based solely on the certification made, by the Observer. There is, however, nothing to elicit from the impugned order that the certification by the observer as to the membership of 40 persons, who according to the respondent-Committee of Management were the only lawful members of the society, was based upon any document evidencing enrolment of these members to the roll of membership of the society. The certification by the observer as to membership of any person sans entries in the relevant cash book and membership register etc., would be irre levant to the question as to who, were enrolled as members of the General Body of the society. It is true that the Regional Deputy Director of Education while delving into the question about the validity of election, was not required to meticulously analyse the related issues as to enrolment of the members to the General Body of the society but when the parties were disputing as to who where the members of the General Body of the society entitled to elect the Committee of Manage ment of the Institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education was under a duty to prima facie satisfy himself, with reference to valid material on record, as to who were the persons entitled to elect the Committee of Management. In my opinion, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has failed to address himself to the material relevant to the question as to who were the members of the General Body of the Society entitled to elect the Committee of Management of the institution.
20. The conclusion reached by the Re-
gional Deputy Director of Education on the question of membership as extracted hereinbefore is in fact fallacious and, though a conclusion on the question of fact, is vitiated due to the reasons that the very process by which the said conclusion has been arrived at, -is itself vitiated due to non-consideration of relevant material on record and owing to considerations of material not quite germane to the issue. The certification by the Observer, as noticed above, dehors the entries in the cash book and membership register etc. was not quite relevant to the question as to who were the members of the General Body of the Society. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has founded the finding on the question as to who were the members of the General Body of the society, solely on the stratum that the list to of members submitted by the respondent-Committee of Management was certified by the Observer. The certification by the Observer may have been of some intrinsic evidentiary value, had it been read along with the entries in the membership register and other relevant material, taken in isolation, it was of no value except where the certification was made by the Observer on perusal and consideration of the relevant materials.
21. It is true that a writ of certiorari can be issued only in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction and that the said distinction necessarily implies that a finding of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal or statutory authority as a result of appreciation of evidence, cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ jurisdiction, however grave it may appear to be and that the quantum of evidence or appreciation thereof for recording of finding of facts would not come within the purview of High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It means that judicial review of an order, passed by a statutory authority under Art. 226 of the Constitution, is not an appeal from the decision of the statutory authority, but a review of the manner in which the decision has been made by such authority and that it would be an error to think that the court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision-making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself. But it is equally true that the writ of certiorari can be issued if in recording such a finding the tribunal/court/statutory authority has acted on evidence, which is legally inadmissible or has refused to admit admissible evidence or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all; and that when the issue raised in judicial review under Article 226 of the Const, is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account the irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account the relevant, factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority entrusted with the power in question can reasonably have made such decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevancy of the factors.
(See -- Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 232; Chandigarh Administration v. Manprit Singh, 1992 (4) JT SC 436 1: (AIR 1992 SC 435); Wee Company of India Limited v. Presiding Officer, 1990 (2)SCC 18; the State of West Bengal v. Atal Krishna Shaw, AIR 1990 SC 2205; Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) I WLR 155; and State of U.P. v. Dharmendra Prasad Singh, AIR 1989 SC 997.
22. If tested on the anvil of principles of law stated above, the conclusion reached by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on the question of validity of the disputed election in the instant case, cannot be sustained. The conclusion reached by the Deputy Director of Education on the question of effective control being based on appreciation of valid material on record is although not vitiated but the ultimate decision to accord recognition to the respondent-Committee of Management is vitiated due to the reason that the conclusion reached by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on the question of validity of the disputed election is not sustainable in law as discussed above. The right to manage the affairs of an Institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is vested in a Committee of Management duly elected in accordance with the scheme of administration and if the election of the Committee of Management is found not to have been held in accordance with the scheme of administration, the group of such persons managing the affairs of the Institution would be taken as rank outsiders not entitled in law to manage the affairs of the Institution.
23. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has, therefore, to traverse upon the question as to the validity of the election in a correct perspective and record a finding thereon, but till that is done, the Committee of Management already recognised by the District Inspector of Schools and found to be in actual control of the affairs of the Institution, may in the interest of the institution, be allowed to continue. It is clarified that in case it is found that the election of the respondent-Committees was validly held, it shall be allowed to continue till the expiry of its term. In case the finding is otherwise, it will have no right to manage the affairs of the Institution and in case of the petitioner-Committee of Management being found lawfully elected, the Management of the Institution shall be entrusted to it. In case, however, none of the two Committees of Management is found to have been duly elected, the Regional Deputy Director of Education may direct for fresh election in accordance with law.
24. In view of the above discussions, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated. 22-9-1993, is quashed subject to the condition that the respondent-Committee of Management which has been found to be in effective control of the affairs of the College, shall continue to manage the affairs of the college, institution until a decision adverse to them is taken by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment.
25. Petition partly allowed.