JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. By order dated 17th July. 1998. Annexure-14 to the writ petition, the Regional Joint Director of Education, 12th Region, Moradabad has approved amendment in clauses (8) and (9) in the Scheme of Administration of Kisan Adarsh Inter College, Khad Gujar, district Jyotiba Phulley Nagar whereby the term of the Committee of Maragement of the institution has been expanded and enlarged from three years to five years. This order has been challenged by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the following circumstances.
2. There is an Intermediate college known as Kisan Adarsh Inter College, Khad Gujar, Moradabad (Now) Jyotiba Phulley Nagar which is duly recognised under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and to which the provisions of U. P. Act No. XXIV of 1971 applied. The said institution is managed by a Society through a Committee of Management elected by the General Body of the Society. The aforesaid institution is managed by the Committee of Management under the provisions of the Scheme of Administration, a copy of which is Annexure-S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by Jitendra Singh, respondent No. 4. The term of the Committee of Management under the unamended Scheme of Administration is three years and its office bearers are to hold office for another one month with a view to facilitate election to constitute new Committee of Management on the expiry of term of the previous Committee. Admittedly on 30.6.1992 the elections were held in which Vijai Veer Singh and Jitendra Singh were elected respectively as President and Manager of the Committee of Management. Well before the expiry of three years the term of the said Committee, fresh elections were held on 28.5.1995 in which again the same persons were elected as President and the Manager, The election held on 28.5.1995 was duly recognised by the concerned authorities and the signatures of Jitendra Singh as Manager were attested. A Writ Petition No. 19252 of 1995 was Tiled to challenge the said election. By order dated 19.7.1995, the Deputy Director of Education was directed to decide the controversy. By order dated 1.2.1996 the Deputy Director of Education appointed Smt. Wajahat Nisa Naqvi. Retd. District Inspector of Schools [Girls) as Authorised Controller. He came to the conclusion that the elections held on 18.5.1995 were farce and the recognition of the said election on 11.7.1995 was illegal. Against this order, another Writ Petition No. 4931 of 1996 was filed. By order dated 8.2.1996 passed by this Court, the order dated 1.2.1996 whereby the Authorised Controller was appointed was quashed and the Deputy Director concerned was directed to decide the controversy afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. On 15.2,96 another order was passed appointing Jai Pal Singh, Professor and Head of the Department of English as Authorised Controller and it was directed that he shall take steps to hold fresh election so that new Committee of Management may take over the charge to manage the affairs of the institution. In Special Appeal No. 214 of 1996 a Division Bench of this Court ordered, on 22.8.1996 that if any election is held in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Director, the result of the same will not be given effect to until further order. The result of the protracted litigation has been that the Committee of Management of which Jitendra Singh was Manager, respondent No, 2 continued to function.
3. The term of the Committee of Management held on 28.5.1995 obviously was to expire on 27.5.1998 and elections were necessarily to be held to constitute new Committee of Management latest by 27th June. 1998. The case of the petitioners is that when the President and the Secretary finally, failed to requisition a meeting of the General Body to hold elections, a letter dated 20,5.1998 was sent to the D.I.O.S. who by his letter dated 23rd May. 1998 permitted to convene the meeting of the General Body under the provisions of clause (9) of the Scheme of Administration. A meeting of the General Body, it is alleged, was called after giving notice by registered post and under certificate of posting to the various members and a schedule of election was chalked out and intimated to all the members. According to the schedule, nomination were to be filed on 28.6.1998, withdrawal/scrutiny was to take place on 29.6.1998 and if necessary poll was to take place on 30.6.1998. The District Inspector of Schools did not appoint any Presiding Officer/observer to supervise the election. Consequently, one Sukhdarshan Singh Shekhon Principal of Sikh Inter College, Narangpur was appointed as the Presiding Officer by the various founder and life members. An intimation of the above fact was also sent to the D.I.O.S. Annexure-2 to the petition indicates that President Chaudhary Natthu Singh Yadav and Manager Chaudhary Mahendra Singh along with other three office bearers were unanimously elected on 30.6.1998. Relevant documents were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools on 1.7.1998 by the founder patron who was elected as Manager for recognition which did not come into existence. The petitioners alleged that the D.I.O.S. withheld the recognition of the duly elected Committee of Management on 30.6.1998 on the ground that the provisions of clauses (8) and (9) of the Scheme of Administration have been amended, inasmuch as the term of the Committee of Management has been enlarged from three years to five years and since the five years term of the Committee of Management, respondent No. 4, had not come to an end, the elections of the new Committee of Management, i.e., petitioner No. 2 could not be recognised. It is alleged that the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 17.7.1998 approving the amendment in the Scheme of Administration is illegal and unauthorised.
4. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.
5. Heard Sri V. C. Misra learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. L. Pandcy on behalf of contesting respondent No. 4, Committee of Management of which Jitendra Singh claims to be the Manager.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that Vijai Veer Singh and Jitendra Singh were elected respectively as President and Secretary of the Committee of Management on 28.5.1995. The said Committee was recognised on 11.7.95 and signatures of Jitendra Singh were attested. On account of various stay orders passed in writ petition and Special Appeal aforesaid Jitendra Singh, respondent No. 4 continued to manage the affairs of the institution. According to the unamended provisions of clause !8) of the Scheme of Administration, the term of the Committee of Management is three years and on the expirty of the period of three years and one month, the Committee shall become defunct and in order to fill the void, the provisions had been made to appoint (Prabahdh Sanchalak to function till such time a duly elected Committee of Management is constituted. Undoubtedly, therefore, the term of the Committee of Management elected on 28.5.1995 came to an end on 27.6.1998. Jilendra Singh, respondent No. 4, the Manager, ceased to work on 27.6.1998 and after the said date, he had no right or legal competence to manage the affairs of the institution. In order to overcome this difficulty, it appears that the meeting of the Executive Committee was held on 23.5.1998 in which letter dated 30.3.1998, Annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit Issued by the Director of Education for extending the term from three years to five years was put to consideration. Under the resolution No. 2 adopted in the meeting of 23.5.1998 the proceedings of which are S. A. 2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit, the Committee approved the enlargement of term of the Committee of Management from three years to five years and the President was authorised to Initiate necessary action for carrying out the proposed amendment by calling a meeting of the General Body. On 14.6.1998, a meeting of the General Body was convened the proceedings of which are S.A.-3 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. As many as 145 members attended the meeting which also included the present petitioner No. 2 Chaudhary Mahendra Singh whose name finds place at serial No. 107. It was unanimously resolved that the term of the Committee of Management be enlarged from three years to five years. The relevant documents were submitted to the concerned Joint Director of Education who by order dated 17.7.1998 has approved the amendment in clauses (8) and (9) of the Scheme of Administration.
7. Sri V. C. Misra learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the amendment could not be carried out in view of the fact that throughout the Stale the term of the Committee of Management is only three years and it is not known as to under what circumstances in the present case, the period was enlarged as five years. This submission of Sri Misra does not stand to the test of scrutiny. The Scheme of Administration has been given a statutory recognition under Section 16A of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Scheme of Administration is to provide amongst other matters for the constitution of the Committee of Management vested with the authority to manage and conduct its affairs. Section 16A (6) provides that every institution shall be managed in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and this statement places limits on the scope of the Scheme which is to provide a procedure and norms for managing the affairs of the administration by the Managing Committee. Further provisions relating to the Scheme of Administration have been made in Sections 16B, 16C. 16CC and 16CCC as well as in Chapter I, Part IIA of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Nowhere in the aforesaid provisions specific period or term of the elected Committee of Management has been specified. It was in the model Schemes of Administration circulated to the various institutions that a proposal was made to prescribe the term of the Committee of Management from three years to five years and Schemes of Administration the Committee of different institutions have adopted either three years or five years term for the Committee of Management. There is no hard and fast rule on the point. In U. P. there are a number Committees of Management the term of which is five years though in majority of cases the term is only three years. Therefore, the submission of Sri Misra that since the term of the Committee of Management is ordinarily three years, it cannot be extended to five years in the case of the present institution is not acceptable as it has no legal backing.
8. In the instant case, what happened is that the Committee of Management and a number of institutions had submitted their proposal to the concerned Joint Director to enlarge the term of the Committee of Management, These amendments were not approved and consequently a composite Writ Petition No. 38932 of 1996 was filed which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10.12.1996 to decide the representation of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Director of Education issued a letter dated 30.3.1998, Annexure-S.A. 3 to all the Regional Joint Director of Education intimating them that if any Committee of Management resolves to enlarge the term of the Committee of Management from three years to five years, appropriate amendment in the Scheme of Administration may be allowed after due scrutiny. In the said letter the Director also quoted the order of the State Government dated 19.12.1997. It was in pursuance of this letter dated 30.3.1998 that the Committee of Management of the present institution took steps to enlarge the term of the Committee of Management and accordingly by order dated 17.7.1998 the Joint Director of Education approved the amendment. The position as it stands is that the amendment in the Scheme of Administration has been duly approved and now the term of the Committee of Management has become five years instead of original term of three years.
9. Sri N. L. Pandey learned counsel for respondent No. 4 urged that in view of the enlargement of the term of the Committee, the Committee elected on 28.5.1995 shall cease to function in May, 2000, and, therefore, the election set-up by the petitioner allegedly having taken place on 30.6.98 is of no consequence. This submission has been repelled by Sri V. C. Misra primarily on the ground that even if the amendment in clauses (8) and (9) of the Scheme of Administration be taken to be effective and operative, it cannot have retrospective operation. 1 have given thoughtful consideration to the matter and find that the amendment carried out in clauses (8) and (9) of the Scheme of Administration could not revive a lifeless Committee of Management. The amendment in the Scheme of Administration became effective on 17.7.1998. It is a date on which the Joint Director of Education has approved the amendment. Under subsection (3) of Section 16A, it has been provided that "no amendment to or change in the Scheme of Administration shall be made at any time without prior approval of the Director," A plain reading of this provision indicates that the amendment in the Scheme of Administration shall be operative and effective not before the date it is approved by the Director or for that matter Joint/Deputy Director who exercises the power of the Director. There can be no escape from the conclusion that the amendment in clauses (8) and (9) of the Scheme of Administration took effect from 17.7.1998 and not prior to it. Respondent No. 4, Committee of Management which was elected on 28.5.1995 ceased to exist on 27.6.1998 on which date the original period of three years and one month had expired. A Committee of Management which has run out its tenure and was no more in existence could not be rejuvenated by a subsequent amendment. Things would have been different if the amendments have been made operative during the period the Committee was in the midst of its original term. Therefore, a Committee which has already become defunct on account of its having exhausted its term cannot take the advantage of the amendment of the enlargement of the term. The benefit of the term of five years as incorporated in the Scheme of Administration by way of amendment approved on 17.7.1998 is to be availed by the new Committee of Management which may be elected after the said date. Certainly respondent No. 4 Committee of Management has ceased to function on 27th June, 1998 and cannot be allowed to manage the affairs of the institution any more.
10. Now it is a time to consider the case of the petitioner's Committee of Management which, it is alleged came into being as a result of the election held on 30.6.1998. It is true that Chaudhary Mahendra Singh petitioner No. 2 is the founder patron of the Society but he under the Scheme of Administration had no power to convene a meeting of the General Body or to chalk out a schedule for election and to hold the election. The provisions of clause (9) of the Scheme of Administration are clear and specific. The meeting to settle the election schedule is to be convened by issuing a notice to be signed by the outgoing President and the Manager. If they failed to convene such a meeting, life members and other members as contemplated in clause (9) could convene a meeting with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Prima facie the meeting convened by petitioner No. 2 prescribing the election schedule and to hold election, if necessary, on 30.6.1998 was illegal. The term of the Committee of Management of which Jitendra Singh was the Manager was to continue till 27.5.1998 and its office bearers were to function upto 27.6.1998. It was the outgoing Committee of Management which was authorised to hold the election. During the subsistence of the term of the earlier Committee of Management, the petitioner No. 2 and for that matter, other life members had no right to convene a meeting of the General Body to take a decision to hold election and to actually initiate the election process to bring it to a logical end. The attempt of petitioner No. 2 to constitute a new Committee of Management on 30.6.1998 was otiose. It was for this reason that the District Inspector of Schools has rightly not recognised the petitioners' Committee of Management and refused to attest the signatures of petitioner No. 2.
11. In conclusion, for the reasons stated above. I find that the petitioners cannot manage the affairs of the institution as the petitioner No. 1 is not the duly elected Committee of Management. Respondent No. 4 Committee of Management also cannot be allowed to function and to manage the affairs of the institution as its original term of three years and one month has expired on 27th June. 1998, on which date it became defunct. The only course left to overcome the difficulty and to bridge up yawning gap is to appoint an Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the institution and his tenure is to last till a new Committee of Management is elected according to the Scheme of Administration for the amended term of five years.
12. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. In the light of the above observations, the District Inspector of Schools is directed to assume the charge of the affairs of the Institutions immediately. He shall function as an Authorised Controller under the provisions of clause (9) of the Scheme of Ad ministration. The D.I.O.S., Jyotlba Phulley Nagar who will be acting as Authorised Controller shall take all possible earnest steps to get the new Committee of Management constituted after due election according to the Scheme of Administration. This exercise shall be completed positively by 31sl January, 1999. The registry of this Court shall send a copy of this order by registered post to the D.I.O.S.. Jyotiba Phulley Nagar immediately.