JUDGMENT S. P. Srivastava, J.
1. The abovementioned two writ petitions are directed against the same order dated 17.7.95 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University refusing the grant of recognition contemplated under Section 2 (13) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 to both of the rival Committees of Management seeking recognition as a duly constituted Committee of Management for running and managing the Ratan Sen Degree College. Bansi basing their claims on two elections claimed to have been held on 16.4.95 and 29.1.95.
2. The election claimed to have been held on 29.1.95 is alleged to pertain to Raja Ratan Sen Shiksha Parishad Society while the election claimed to have been held on 16.4.95 is alleged to pertain to the Ratan Sen Degree College Society, Bansi.
3. The Vice-Chancellor under the impugned order has refused to grant recognition to the rival Committees of Management claimed to have been elected on 29.1.95 and 16.4.95 providing, however, that the matter in regard to the grant of recognition to the Committee of Management claimed to have been elected on 16.4.95 in the meeting of the Ratan Sen Degree College Society, Bansi will be considered on the basis of the list of members of the Society published by the Assistant Registrar. Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur subsequent to the grant of renewal of the registration certificate of the said Society.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned counsel representing the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, the respondent.
5. It may be noticed that the matter relating to the question as to which of the aforesaid Societies was in fact running and managing the Ratan Sen Degree College. Bansi had come up for consideration before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19744 of 1991 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30383 of 1991 decided vide the common judgment and order dated 23.1.95. In its aforesaid decision, this Court had, after taking into consideration various facts and circumstances, clarified that the aforesaid Degree College was being run and managed by the Society in the name and style of Raja Ratan Sen Degree College, Bansi, Siddharthnagar registered under the Societies Registration Act and the concerned authorities were liable to accept this position. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, it has been asserted that in view of the judgment of this Court dated 23.1.95 inserted of the Trust Committee, a Committee registered under Societies Registration Act No. 21 of 1860 and elected in accordance with the provisions of bye-laws would function.
6. The tenure of the Committee of Management of the Society registered in the name and style of Ratan Sen Degree College. Bansi. Siddharthnagar had been fixed under the bye-laws to be of a period of three years which could not be extended further. Similar is the position in regard to the tenure of the Committee of Management contemplated under the bye-laws of Raja Ratan Sen Singh Shiksha Parishad.
7. The Vice-Chancellor under the impugned order while rejecting the claim of the Committee of Management elected in the meeting held by Raja Ratan Sen Shiksha Parishad, Bansl claimed to have taken place on 29.1.95 has found that the meeting had not been convened by the person who stood authorised for the purpose under the bye-laws. Various other factors have also been taken note of while refusing the grant of recognition to the Committee of Management elected on 29.1.95.
8. It has been observed by the Vice-Chancellor that the Committee of Management alleged to have been elected on 16.4.95 cannot be taken to be 'beyond doubt' and the meeting could not be held to have taken place in accordance with law. The aforesaid observation appears to have been based on the alleged discrepancy in the total number of the members of the General Body of the Society. The Vice-Chancellor has further observed that the certificate of registration of the Ratan Sen Degree College. Society. Bansi had not been renewed and a dispute in this regard was pending before the Assistant Registrar. Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur region. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Vice-Chancellor proceeded on the assumption that the Society could not be taken to be in existence and in this view of the matter, also the question of granting recognition to the Committee of Management claimed to have been elected on 16.4.95 could not arise.
9. During the pendency of the writ petition in this Court, along with a supplementary affidavit, a copy of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur region. Gorakhpur dated 9.6.96 was filed which indicates that the competent authority had granted the renewal to the certificate of registration issued in favour of Ratan Sen Degree College Society. The result of the grant of renewal of the certificate of registration indicated above obviously is that the main ground on which the Vice-Chancellor had refused to grant the recognition to the Committee of Management claimed to have been elected on 16.4.95 has become non-existent.
10. Withholding of recognition of a Committee of Management as a duly constituted Committee of Management for running and managing the Degree College affiliated to the University is a matter of considerable importance as the refusal to grant the recognition to a Committee of Management for the purposes of running and managing the College divests the society or the body of persons of the rights to manage the institution established by it through a Committee of Management as envisaged under the bye-laws of the Society, and to that extent, such an order passed by the Vice-Chancellor, in fact, interferes with institutional rights. It may be a temporary or partial deprivation of rights to run and manage the institution of the Society through its duly elected Committee of Management. Such an order necessarily involves a conflict between the institutional interest on the one hand and the public interest on the other which is sought to be served by the grant of recognition contemplated under Section 2 (13) of the State Universities Act. It is, therefore, obvious that there always exists the imperative need to balance the two requirements. It may, however, be emphasised that the affairs of an educational institution must be conducted in accordance with law and it is of utmost importance that an atmosphere conducive to the development of the education is ensured and maintained which in fact is always the object that an institution receiving grants-in-aid from the State is supposed to serve.
11. As has already been indicated above, the tenure of the Committee of Management is only for a period of three years which is not liable to extension. However, a state of vacuum has to be avoided. There may be a default on the part of the outgoing Committee of Management in holding an election for constituting a new Committee of Management. In such an event, unless the outgoing Committee of Management is not deemed to be functional till the election of the new Committee of Management, a state of vacuum will come into existence which will not be either in the interest of the institution or in the public interest. In this view of the matter, the election held by the Committee of Management duly recognised by the Vice-Chancellor which may be termed as an outgoing Committee of Management, which election had been held subsequent to the expiry of the period of three years as contemplated under the bye-laws, if found to have been held in accordance with law in a meeting of the general body of the institution lawfully held in the sense that it was properly convened, properly constituted and properly conducted, deserves recognition for the administrative purposes in case it is found that it is continuing to be in effective control of the affairs of the institution.
12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record and noticed hereinabove, sufficient ground has been made out for interference by this Court.
13. In the result, the impugned order passed by the Vice-Chancellor dated 17.7.95, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed with the direction that the question in regard to the granting or withholding of the recognition to the Committee of Management be considered afresh taking into account the implications arising under the order of this Court disposing of the Writ Petition No. 19744 of 1991 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30383 of 1991, decided on 23.1.1995 and in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
14. The Vice-Chancellor shall ensure that final orders disposing of the matter in question are passed after affording opportunity to the parties concerned within a period not later than two months from the production of a certified copy of this order before him.