JUDGMENT Janardan Sahai, J.
1. The dispute relates to the Committee of Management entitled to manage Janta Inter College, Patal Khansi, J.P. Nagar, an institution recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The last elections of the Committee of Management, which were granted recognition were held in the year 1995. A Committee of Management was elected in which respondent No. 4, Dharam Veer Singh was the Manager and K.P. Singh the President. Under the scheme of administration the term of the Committee of Management in 5 years. In the year 2000 two rivals sets of elections are said to have been held-one on 18.6.2000 in which a committee with the respondent No. 4 Dharam Veer Singh as Manager was constituted and the other on 13.8.2000 in which a committee with the petitioner No. 2 Naresh Pal Singh as Manager was constituted. The committee of Naresh Pal Singh said to have been constituted on 13.8.2000 was recognised by the District Inspector of Schools on 1.9.2000. This order was challenged, in Writ Petition No. 43230 of 2000 by respondent No. 4 Dharam Veer Singh. This writ petition was decided on 6.1.2003 and was allowed on the ground that there was a dispute between rival Committees of Management, which could have been decided only under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the District Inspector of Schools who had passed the order had no jurisdiction to decide the matter.
2. On remand the Regional Joint Director of Education, 12th Region, Moradabad passed an order dated 24.3.2003. The Regional Joint Director found that the elections relied upon by the petitioner Naresh Pal Singh were not proved and he was also not competent to convene a meeting to hold the elections. It was also found that the elections relied upon by respondent No. 4 Dharamveer Singh were not valid and that the papers in respect of the said elections had not even been submitted before the District Inspector of Schools. A Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed. Two writ petitions were filed against the order of the Regional Joint Director of Education-one being Writ Petition No. 16191 of 2003 by Naresh Pal Singh the second petitioner and he other being Writ Petition No. 15143 of 2003 by the respondent No. 4 Dharamveer Singh. The writ petitions were allowed by order dated 11.8.2003 and the order of the Regional Director of Education dated 24.3.2003 was quashed. The case of Naresh Pal Singh was that the elections were held in the meetings of 13.8.2000 on he basis of requisition made by the members of the general body of the society. This Court held that under the scheme of administration the Manager with the consent of the President could convene the meeting but the members could also convene the meeting if the President and the Manager on the request of the District Inspector of Schools and further even the Asstt. Manager and the Vice President do not convene the meeting despite request of the District Inspector of Schools. It was also held that the direction to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak was illegal as there was no provision in the scheme contemplating such an appointment. The matter was again sent back for fresh decision to the Regional Joint Director. The Joint Director relied upon the report of the District Inspector of Schools that the papers in respect of election of respondent No. 4 Dharamveer Singh had not been submitted and passed an order dated 22.10.2003 that the elections of Dharamveer Singh could not be recognised. The elections of Naresh Pal Singh were recognised. Reliance was placed upon Clause 19 of the scheme of administration that the members could convene the meeting after obtaining permission from the District Inspector of Schools.
3. The decision of the Joint Director of Education dated 22.10.2003 was again challenged in Writ Petition No. 48710 of 2003 by the respondent No. 4, Dharamveer Singh. The writ petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 8.10.2004. It was held that the election of Naresh Pal Singh could not have been accepted unless a finding is returned upon the point whether the pre-conditional steps which the life members were required to take had indeed been taken. These steps included the refusal by the President and the Manager and also by the Asstt. Manager and the Vice President to convene a meeting, it was also required that after such refusal permission would have to be obtained from the District Inspector of Schools by the members and after the decision to convene a meeting was taken, the election programme was required to be published in two news papers and observer was also required to be appointed by the District Inspector of Schools. The matter was thus again sent back to the Joint Director of Education. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 28.1.2005 has been passed by the Joint Director of Education, Moradabad by which he was recognised the committee of respondent No. 4 and has found that the elections relied upon by Naresh Pal Singh were forged and also invalid. A further direction has been given that the committee of respondent No. 4 will hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management within three months in view of the fact that the term of the Committee of Management would be expiring in June, 2005.
4. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Irshad Ali, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Saxena learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Saxena on behalf of Dharamveer Singh and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the statutory authorities.
5. The validity of the order passed by the Joint Director of Education has been challenged on several grounds. It is contended that under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 the committee of three members headed by the Joint Director has been constituted to decide all the disputes relating to the Management of the Institution. It is submitted that in this case that the decision had been taken by the Joint Director individually and not by the committee and consequently the order passed by the Joint Director of Education is without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon the decision in (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2731, Committee of Management of Ganga Khand Inter College, Aligarh v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra and Ors.. In that case there was a dispute between the two rival Committees of Management and it was held by this Court that the decision by the Joint Director of Education alone was invalid in view of the terms of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000. The decision was challenged in appeal. Before the Division Bench, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the decision taken by the Joint Director is in consonance with the provisions of Section 16-A(7) of the Act and that the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 was ultravires. The Division Bench repelled the contention. It was held that under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 the Regional Level Committee has merely to send its recommendations to the officer authorized to pass the order under the provisions of the Act. The Government Order it was held was merely recommendatory in nature and based upon such recommendations the matter had to be decided by the Joint Director. The scope of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 came up for consideration in a subsequent decision in (2004) 3 UPLBEC 2596, Committee of Management, Sri Nehru Smarak Inter College v. Surjan Singh. It was held that the field which the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 covered was entirely different from the field covered under Section 16-A(7) of the Act. A distinction was drawn between a dispute relating to he Management raised by two rival Committees of Management claiming to have effective control over the institution on the one hand and a dispute for recognition and to be put in effective control on the basis of fresh elections. It was held that the functions of the Regional Committee under the Government Order are the same as those that were earlier being performed by the District Inspector of Schools who in his administrative capacity was required to recognize a committee for the purpose of dealing with the institution. Such disputes apart, the Government Order would also cover disputes raised by such individual or group of members of the general body who are not claiming he right to manage the institution themselves as a rival Committee of Management but who challenge the right of the elected office bearers for recognition. In this case the nature of the dispute which is involved falls under Section 16-A(7) and there is no dispute upon this point. This is also clear from the orders of this Court in the earlier writ petitions including Writ Petition No. 48710 of 2003. The Division Bench cited by the Counsel for the petitioner does not decide the question about the field which the Government Order covers. What has been held therein is that the Government Order is not ultravires the provisions of Section 16-A(7) of the Act. It is well settled that a case is an authority for what it decides and not for what may logically follow from it. It is only the ratio of the decision that binds. The question as to what is the field covered by the Government Order has not been considered by the Division Bench. The decision of Nehru Smarak Inter College (supra) is, therefore, not inconsistent with the Division Bench. The contention, therefore, that the Joint Director could not have individually decided the dispute, therefore, has no merit.
6. The next contention advanced by Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 is not a life member of the society. In the impugned order a detailed finding has been given by the Joint Director of Education upon the point. The case of the petitioners is that the membership fee for a life member is Rs. 1000/- and only 100/- was deposited by respondent No. 4 way back in the year 1980 and the fees of an ordinary member being Rs. 12/- per annum, the said sum of Rs. 100/- could sustain the membership only upto the year 1998. The Joint Director of Education while dealing with this contention has held that in the year 1995 elections were held and in those elections, which were recognised the respondent No. 4 was elected as Manager a fact which would go to show that the membership of the respondent No. 4 had not ceased in 1995. The Joint Director has also bound that the name of the respondent-Dharamveer Singh was also included in the list of members submitted by the previous Manager Lakhan Singh which is in respect of a period much after 1998. The finding recorded by the Joint Director is one of fact. It cannot be said that the decision taken by the Joint Director of Education on the point is perverse. Even if there can be two views upon the point, it is to be noted that the decision given under Section 16-A(7) of the Act is of summary nature. Intricate and complicated questions relating to the membership are not meant to be decided under Section 16-A(7) and it is open to the petitioner to file a civil suit. This contention has also, therefore, to be repelled.
7. The next contention advanced is that there is no finding of effective control recorded by the Joint Director, which he was required to give in view of the order of remand earlier passed by this Court. The finding recorded by the Joint Director upon the point is that the elections relied upon by the petitioner said to have been held oh 13.8.2004 were not valid elections and detailed reasons have been given by the Joint Director of Education; which are as follows :--Naresh Pal Singh was not an office bearer of the outgoing committee and consequently had no right to hold the elections. The elections relied upon by Naresh Pal Singh were held on the basis of a list of members of 1992 which was not valid in view of a subsequent list issued in 2000. Several members whose names have been given who are said to have participated in the elections have filed affidavits disputing the elections. Some members shown to be present in the elections were dead. The District Inspector of Schools had no authority to grant permission to members (unless the pre-conditional steps referred to above) were taken. It was held that the elections relied upon by Naresh Pal Singh were not proved. The finding is one of fact and is not shown to be vitiated by any error of law.
8. The Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Gorakhpur and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and Ors., (2005) 1 UPLBEC 85, has held that while deciding the question of actual control the Joint Director has to decide the validity of the elections. Good reasons aforesaid have been given by the Joint Director. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, the manner in which the point has been dealt with by the Joint Director can not be said to be erroneous. He was not required to do any more.
9. The next contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the Joint Director has not decided the validity of the electoral college. The electoral college upon which the elections of the respondent No. 4 were held consisted of 62 members. Detailed objections were raised about the membership list by the petitioner in Paras 2 and 4 of the objections; Annexure 15 to the writ petition. This Court also had in its previous judgment dated 8.4.2004 in Writ Petition No. 48710 of 2003 directed the Joint Director of Education to take a decision on this point. There is some merit in this contention that the validity of the electoral college was not decided. Apart from noticing the fact that the elections of the respondent No. 4 were held by an electoral college consisting 62 members, no finding has been given by the Joint Director of Education whether the membership list consisted of genuine and valid members of the general body entitled to vote. It is submitted by Sri Saxena that the objections in Paras 2 and 4 of the objections relate to the list of 1992 and 1994-95. A perusal of the objections however indicates that the challenge has also been made to the electoral list of 2000. In these Paras of the objections it has also been stated that the list of members said to have been finalized in year 1994-95 under the signature of the District Inspector of Schools is actually a forged list and in fact no such list was countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools. The same objection has been raised in respect of the electoral list of 2000 on the basis of which election has been held by the respondent No. 4. The nature of the issue involved is obviously factual. In view of the specific direction given by this Court in its order dated 8.10.2004 it was incumbent upon the Joint Director to have given decision upon this point, which he has not. The matter has, therefore, to be sent back to him.
10. It was contended by Sri P. N. Saxena Counsel for the respondent No. 4 that in a dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the Act, the Joint Director of Education is not required to go into the question about the validity of the electoral college. I am not inclined to accept this submission. It has been held by the Full Bench in Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College case (supra) that the nature of the power exercised by the Joint Director is quasi-judicial. It has also been held that the Joint Director of Education is called upon to decide the validity of the elections. For the purpose of deciding the validity of the elections, the Joint Director of Education would be required to decide whether the meeting has been convened by a person legally competent to convene it; that the persons who participated in the elections had a right to participate in the elections; that the meeting in which the elections are alleged to have been held was in fact held; that the elections were in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under the scheme of administration. If the Joint Director finds that any of those requirements is not proved he would have to hold that the elections are invalid.
11. Another contention advanced by Counsel for the petitioner is that the copies of the resolutions said to have been passed in the meeting of the general body dated 18.6.2000 filed by the respondent No. 4 on different occasions differ from each other a fact which indicates that the papers relating to the elections dated 18.6.2000 relied upon by the respondent No. 4 are forged. These copies have been annexed alongwith the writ petition as Annexures 18 and 19. A perusal of these two lists indicates that there is some discrepancy between the two. The discrepancy is sought to be explained by Sri P. N. Saxena by saying that Annexure 19 is the gist of the meeting held on 18.6.2000. In Para 19 of the objections filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had specifically pointed out the discrepancy. The Joint Director has not returned a finding on this point. As the dispute relates to facts it was necessary for the Joint Director to consider whether the explanation rendered by the petitioner is a valid one or not. A finding that the proceedings have been fabricated would have a material bearing upon the validity of the election dated 18.6.2000. Before parting with the case it is necessary to take note of One submission made by Sri P. N. Saxena, Counsel for the respondent No. 4. He submits that Naresh Pal Singh is not even a member of the general body of the society and he was not even a member in the year 1995 nor participated in the elections held in 1995. This issue also is a factual one. In view of what has been found it is necessary that the Joint Director of Education may take a fresh decision.
12. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, 12th Region, Moradabad is set aside. The Regional Joint Director will decide the matter afresh. He will first decide the question as to whether the petitioner No. 2 Naresh Pal Singh is a member and has a right to file objections. In case the Regional Joint Director holds that the petitioner is not a member, it will not be necessary for him to go into the other questions.