JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 24,7.1998, Annexure-21 of the writ petition, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, (for short 'D.I.O.S.') be quashed and the respondents be commanded not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners as the Committee of Management of Pachottar National Inter College. Mardah, Ghazipur.
2. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the petitioner Dr. R. G. Padia, learned senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 S/Sri Mahendra Singh and Yogesh Chandra Singh respectively. Dr. Padia stated that since the present petition involves determination of certain legal questions, it may be decided finally without requiring the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to file the counter-affidavit. Learned standing counsel is also of the same view. 1. therefore, proceed to hear and decide the present writ petition on merits on the basis of the facts as have been unfolded in the grounds of the petition, as well as the various annexures, appended thereto.
3. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri (Dr.) R. G. Padia on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as well as, learned standing counsel, at considerable length. The dispute relates about the constitution of the Committee of Management of Pachottar National Inter College which is a recognised and aided educational institution. There is a duly approved Scheme of Administration as framed under Section 16A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Under the Scheme of Administration, there has to be an elected Committee of Management. A copy of the Scheme of Administration has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A provision for constitution of Committee of Management has been made which indicates that there will be, in all. 15 members, including three ex-officio members, namely, the Principal of the institution and two teachers. Besides three Ex-officio members, there shall be 12 members out of which 5 shall be the office bearers holding the posts of (i) Adhyaksha. (ii) Upadhyakash, (iii) Prabandhak, (iv) Up-Prabandhak, (v) Kosadhyaksha. The term of the Committee of Management is three years and the office bearers of the Committee shall continue to function for the next one month more. In case within the period of three years and one month, the new elected Committee of Management does not take over, the term of the old Committee would automatically come to an end and the Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by Regional Deputy Director shall discharge all the functions and perform duties of the Committee of Management till such time a new elected body comes into existence. The Scheme of Administration also prescribes the election procedure. A meeting of the general body shall be called jointly by the President and the Manager by issuing a notice to be signed by them and in case they fail to call a meeting for purpose of prescribing the future schedule for election, one third members of the general body may require the president and the Manager to call the meeting of the general body. If on such requisition, of one third members of the general body, no meeting is called, an information shall be transmitted to the D.I.O.S. and with his permission a meeting of the general body would be called in which a President shall be nominated to chair the meeting and to determine the election schedule. It is also provided that two months before the completion of the three years term of the Committee, the President/Manager shall notify the duly approved election schedule and send notices by registered post to the members of the general body and if the membership of the general body exceeds more than 200 members, it would be sufficient to serve the notice by ordinary post and by publication of the election schedule in some local newspaper.
4. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the last Committee of Management was elected on 5.2.1995 in which Sri Mandhata Singh was elected as Manager. 85 persons were the members of the general body. Three years' term of the Committee of Management of which Mandhata Singh was Manager was to expire on 5.2. J998. It is alleged that an election schedule was published after completing the necessary formalities and according to election schedule. 15.2.1998 was fixed for nomination 17.2.1998 was the date for scrutiny of the nomination papers and for withdrawal of the candidature and 1.3.1998 was specified as the date of poll, if necessary. The case of the petitioners is that, nominations were filed on 15.2.1998 and 17.2.1998. The number of the candidates for the posts of seven members and four office bearers, namely. Upadhyaksha, Prabandhak. Up-Prabandhak and Kosadhyaksha was equal to the number of seats to be filled and that there was a contest only for the post of Adhyaksha as two candidates, namely. S/Srl Mahendra Singh and Om Prakash Singh were in the field which necessitated poll on the date fixed, i.e., 1.3.1998. According to the petitioners, S/Sri Kaflash Nath Tewari. Ambika Singh, Ram Baras Misra. Shiv Prakash Singh, Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi, Ram Nath Singh and Harihar Singh were elected unopposed as the members of the Committee of Management and S/Sri Shiv Shankar Tewari. Rajendra Prasad Singh. Jai Prakash Singh and Sree Kant were respectively elected unopposed as Upadhyaksha. Manager, Deputy Manager and Kosadhyaksha. In this manner, according to the petitioners, out of 12 members and office bearers to be elected, 11 were declared elected unopposed as the number of the candidates was equal to the number of seats to be filled. The election to the post of the Adhyaksha (President) was to be held on 1.3.1998, under the supervision of Sri Paras Nath Rai, Principal. Madan Mohan Malviya Inter College, Sikri but the poll could not be held on that day as the election officer did not turn up.
5. The Committee of Management, of which Rajendra Prasad Singh petitioner No. 2 claims himself to have been elected, unopposed, sent the relevant papers to the D.I.O.S. for recognition. The Committee was duly recognised and the signatures of Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh were attested by the D.I.O.S. on 6.4.1998. The Ex-president, Mahendra Singh, who was also one of the contestants to the post of President and Yogesh Chandra Singh, who was the member of the last Committee of Management and had earlier been Manager also, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14146 of 1996, challenging the alleged election of the Committee of Management primarily, on the ground that the entire election process was farce as provisions of the Scheme of Administration were thrown to winds. The aforesaid writ 'petition was disposed of on 24.4.1998 by this Court with the observation that the petitioners of that petition shall take all the grounds which were taken in the pelition before the D.I.O.S. who shall decide the controversy after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the material which may be brought before him, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, the D.I.O.S. invited Rajendra Prasad Singh, present petitioner No. 2 and S/Sri Mahendra Singh and Yogesh Chandra Singh to place their points of view and to support their respective contentions. After taking Into consideration the material placed before the D.I.O.S. and also examining the reports of Paras Nath Rai--Election officer and the provisions of the Scheme of Administration, the D.I.O.S. by order dated 24.7.1998 has come to the conclusion that the election which is alleged to have taken place stood vitiated, as it was not in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, inasmuch as, no meeting had taken place two months before the expiry of the term of the last Committee, which should have been done by 5.12.1997 and that the notices by registered post were sent to the members only a few days before the date of nomination with the result that the members, of the general body were deprived of the benefit of taking part in the elections. According to the D.I.O.S., the election process was highly unfair, inasmuch as, nomination papers could not be filed by the desirous candidates to contest the elections for the various posts of members and office bearers of the Committee of Management that the election officer had submitted contradictory reports and in any case, without the election of the President, the Committee of Management could not have come into being and, therefore, the D.I.O.S. recalled his earlier order dated 6.4.1998 and made a recommendation to the Joint Director of Education to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak so that a new Committee of Management may be elected under his supervision.
6. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners scathingly criticised the impugned order and urged that since out of 12 members and office bearers, to be elected, 11 were elected unopposed and the election to the office of President only was to be conducted, the Committee of Management had already come into existence and, therefore, the D.I.O.S. had rightly recognised the Committee of Management represented by Rajendra Prasad Singh whose signatures were attested on 6.4.1998 ; that the D.I.O.S. had absolutely no power or authority to review or recall his earlier order and to make a recommendation for appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak. It was also urged that the D.I.O.S. had no authority to declare the validity or otherwise of the election. Dr. R. G. Padia has repelled each one of the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter and find that on facts, this Court has, of necessity, to accept the conclusions arrived at by the D.I.O.S. who was duty bound to decide the matter in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 24.4.1998 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14146 of 1998. It is true that the D.I.O.S. cannot go into the question of validity or otherwise of the election to the Committee of Management and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to approach the civil court but the fact remains that in the Instant case, the D.I.O.S. has embarked upon the enquiry-in pursuance of the order of this Court. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is well-established that neither under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act nor under any statutory provision, the D.I.O.S. has been given the power to adjudicate upon the claims of the rival contending Managing Committees but it is equally clear that under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act as also under the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, the D.I.O.S. has to deal with the Committee of Management of a recognised educational institution in respect of various affairs of the institution, i.e., granting of approval as contemplated by subsection (31 of Section 16C of the Act and dealing with the Management of such an institution under Section 5 of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. Not only this, the D.I.O.S. has to perform various administrative functions of statutory character in collaboration with the Management of High School and Intermediate Colleges. These duties cannot be discharged by the D.I.O.S. unless he is in a position to find out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the Committee. For this limited purpose, the D.I.O.S. must, of necessity, satisfy himself as to who, according to him. are validly elected office bearers of the institution. Mere raising of a dispute about the election of the members of the Managing Committee and its office bearers would not absolve the D.I.O.S. from its duty to find out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the College in order to perform his statutory functions under the aforesaid Acts. Viewed from the angle of administration, the D.I.O.S. Is duty bound to take a decision to recognise the Committee of Management and to attest the signatures of the Manager who has been elected, after satisfying himself as to who, according to him are validly elected office bearers of the institution. An administrative enquiry may always be necessary whenever some sort of dispute or doubt is raised about the election of the new Committee of Management and its office bearers. This aspect of the matter came to be considered in an earlier, decision in the case of Committee of Management, S.A.V. Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12725 of 1975, decided on 24.11.1997, by a Division Bench of this Court. The said decision was agpin came to be considered by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management and another v. D.I.O.S., Meerut and another, 1978 AWC 124. In which the earlier view was reiterated. To the same effect is another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management Vaidik Higher Secondary School. Faizpur, Ninana and another v. D.I.O.S., Meerut and another. (1993) 2 UPLBEC 934. It is now well embedded position of law that the D.I.O.S. has the authority and jurisdiction to determine, on administrative level as to the validity of the elected body, which he has to recognise for various administrative purposes.
8. In the impugned order, the D.J.O.S. has found that the election process in the present case was not only thwarted but virtually throttled by adopting and resorting to machinations and manipulations. No Committee was convened to chalk out election schedule two months prior to the expiry of the term of the Committee. Not only this, the notices by registered post were sent to the members of the general body with an avowed object to defeat the very purpose for which they are given notice of the election schedule, in advance. Most of the members did not have the Information and opportunity of filing the nominations on a particular date, i.e.. 15.2.1998 with the result, some of the henchmen of the previous Manager, Mandhata Singh, were successful in filing the nominations and getting themselves elected, unopposed on the date of scrutiny and withdrawal, i.e., 17.2.1998. As a matter of fact, a hoax was played and fraud perpetrated on the members of the general body which were caught unaware on account of the lack of information about the election schedule. The above conclusion is strengthened from the startling facts and unsavoury feature that even some of the elected members and office bearers filed affidavits deposing that the entire election process was subverted and they had also not been properly elected and are not aware of their election to various posts. These affidavits have been filed by Kailash Nath Tewari, Ambika Singh and Hari Singh. who were elected as members and Jal Prakash Singh who was elected as Up Prabandhak. The affidavits filed by them clearly give a death blow to the stout claim of the petitioners that an election, according to the Scheme of Administration was, in reality, held. Not only this, there has been a bungling in the enrolment of the members of the general body. Some of the persons, who were never the members of the General Body, amazingly, found a seat in the Committee of Management, for example, Vijay Shankar Chaturvedi was never a member of the general body, but he is alleged to have been elected unopposed as member of the Committee of Management. I am conscious of the fact that this Court is not supposed to go into the validity or otherwise of the alleged election but the above facts have been recited only with a view to reflect the hollowness and absurdity in the claim of the petitioners,
9. From the above facts, one can easily conclude that there has been no free, fair and Impartial election according to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration. The democratic process in which the election to the Committee of Management and its office bearers was to be. made was given a complete go by.
10. Now, a crucial legal question, which arises for consideration and determination is, whether (accepting the fact that 11 members and the office bearers were elected unopposed), a Committee of Management came to be constituted without the election of the President and, that, was it necessary to formally declare the unopposed candidates as duly elected, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Election is a procedure for aggregating preferences. The word 'election' covers every part of the process. in the Scheme of Administration, the word 'election' has been used in a wide sense to connote entire procedure to be gone through by return of the candidates. The term 'election' embraces whole procedure which consists of several stages and includes all steps whereby an elected member is returned, whether or not, it be found necessary to take the poll. It is not used in a narrow sense that after the nomination, withdrawal takes place and there is no contestant left in the field, the left over candidates would be treated to have been declared elected unopposed automatically. The nomination, scrutiny and withdrawal are a few steps in the whole process of election. Long way has to be covered before the elections can actually take place. From the date of notification of the election process till the final date of poll and the formal declaration of the results, the election process continues and it is in this wide sense that the word 'election' is to be understood in the Scheme of Administration. Periodical elections take place to make members and the office bearers of a Committee of Management more responsible and accountable. Since purity of election is the most important object, the narrow meaning to the word 'election' is bound to defeat the very purpose and aim. The Scheme of Administration, in which a provision for election process has been made, is to be construed and enforced with a view to effectuate the intention of the founders of the society and the framers of the Scheme of Administration to ensure purity of the elections ; else, there would be an absurd position. To decide the question whether an election has been completed, the Court will have to consult the provision of law or the Scheme of Administration governing the particular election. The elections have to be organised and held within the framework of the Scheme of Administration and no body can be allowed to travel beyond it. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that when once it is accepted that there were 11 nominations against the equal number of seats to be filled, all the 11 members/office bearers shall be deemed to have been elected unopposed and formal declaration of result was not necessary. Dr. R. G. Padia pointed out that the unopposed candidates, even though they have been elected unopposed, on factual matrix, they would have acquired legal status of duly elected members/office bearers only after the polls on 1.3.1998, the results were declared, and since polls could not be held on 1.3.1998, for whatever reasons. It may be, even the alleged unopposed members cannot be treated as having been elected. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Anjuman Islah Muslim Rat put Khasar-C-Bar, Dildarnagar. District Ghazipur and another v. D.I.O.S., Ghazipur and another, 1982 UPLBEC 648. I, have throughly scrutinised and studied the said decision and find that the various observations made in the said case are to be confined to the peculiar facts of that case only. That case does not lay down the law of universal application. in that case, the provisions of Scheme of Administration provided continuity of the Committee of Management till the next election. It was held that the Committee, which passed the order of termination after the expiry of Its three years' term, cannot be held to have ceased to exist and the order of termination was valid. The reference to the aforesaid case is completely otiose and is of no assistance to the petitioners. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the Full Bench decision of this case in Ramesh Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and others, (1992) 1 UPLBEC 292. The Full Bench had taken the view that where the number of valid nominations does no exceed the number of persons to be elected, the election officer shall declare them to have been duly elected on the date of the withdrawal Itself and it was not necessary to declare them elected only after the date of the poll. This position is clearly in keeping with the provisions of Section 53(2) of the Representation of People Act, which provides that if the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled 'the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats.' From the decision of the Full Bench, referred to above, and the aforesaid provision. It is clear that even in the case of uncontested/unopposed election of a member, or office bearer, formal declaration may be made on the same date. In the Instant case, there was no formal declaration by the Election Officer that the 11 members/office bearers of the Committee of Management had been elected unopposed on 17.2.1998. Though, as a fact, it may be true that 11 members/office bearers were to hold the office unopposed, the fact remains that they were not formally declared elected by the Election Officer and, therefore, the legal consequences, which are to flow from the formal declaration of the result, were not to enure to the benefit of the aforesaid 11 members.
11. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the decision of Ram Pyare Choudhary and another v. State of U. P. and another, (1982) I SCC 671.
12. Now, it is the time of consider whether on account of unopposed election of the 11 members/office bearers, a duly constituted Committee of Management has come into existence even though admittedly, the president of the Committee had not been elected on account of certain interruption or obstruction in the poll which was to take place on 1.3.1998. Sri Ashok Khare appears to be of the view that since all the members/office bearers required to be elected, except for one, i.e., President, had been elected unopposed, the Committee of Management had come into existence as it was not necessary for the constitution of the Committee of Management to wait for the election of the President, which was kept in abeyance.
13. After having pondered over the matter and given serious thought to the issue. I find myself in disagreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners. The term 'Committee' is nothing but an assembly or board of persons to whom the consideration or Management of any matter is committed. It is a body of persons authorised to act in a certain manner or say, all persons join in the exercise of some duty or the charge of some trust. It is a body to which other large members of the society or general body, have committed or delegated a particular duty or who have taken it on themselves to perform it in the expectation of their act being confirmed by the body they profess to represent or act for. Committee of Management is the body of members and office bearers to whom the Management of the affairs of the institution the society runs, are entrusted. The Committee of Management, as mentioned above, comprises of two categories of persons--(i) three ex-officio members and (ii) 12 elected members and office bearers (7 elected members and 5 elected office bearers). Office bearers of the Committee of Management will be the President, Vice-President, Manager, Deputy Manager and the Treasurer (Kosadhyaksha). The President is the head of the Committee of Management who is charged with the duty to preside over the meeting of the Committee of Management. If the President is not elected, it would be. In my view, a headless, inchoate and incomplete body. Unless all the office bearers and the members are elected, initial constitution of Committee would not materialise. My considered view is that no newly elected Committee of Management can come Into existence unless the majority of the members and, at least, the President and the Manager, who are prime functionaries have been duly elected. Unless such Committee of Management has come into being, grant of recognition to a Committee, of which President has not been elected, shall be illegal. The expression 'to constitute' is a more solemn act than to appoint or to depute, though the act of choosing some person or persons for an office is comprehended under all these terms, i.e., 'constitute', 'appoint' or 'depute'. To constitute is the act of the body and implies the act of making as well as choosing. A Committee of Management cannot be made unless all the office bearers, or at least majority of the members and President and the Manager, are elected. One cannot conceive of a Committee of Management without its President, who is at the helm of affairs. It is the President who is the crown of the Committee. Some Inspiration in the matter may be drawn from the provision of Article 79 of the Constitution of India. It provides that 'there shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two houses to be known respectively as Council of State and House of People'. Council of State is permanent body. The President is an elected person and the members to the house of people are also elected ones. There are, therefore, three components of a Parliament, i.e., President. Council of States and the House of People. Suppose, in any situation, a duly elected President is not there, can a Parliament be deemed to have been constituted under the provision of Article 79? My answer to it would be an emphatic 'no'. Unless the President and the members of the Parliament are elected, a duly constituted Parliament would not come into existence. On the same analogy, unless the President is elected, a new Committee of Management would not come Into being. The submission of Sri Ashok Khare that in the absence of the Prabandhak, Up-Prabandhak can take over and the only requirement for convening a valid meeting is that the requisite number of members should be present to complete the quorum. This submission has been stated simply to be rejected for one simple reason that all these contingencies would arise after the duly constituted Committee of Management has come into existence. In the instant case, we are dealing with the initial constitution of a valid Committee of Management. If at the initial stage, itself, a new Committee of Management has not come into existence, the question of convening a meeting by the Up-Prabandhak or of the quorum or of the majority decision would be of no consequence. The submission of Sri Ashok Khare may be tested by taking yet another example. It is accepted at all hands that the Manager is the prime functionary of the Committee of Management and day-to-day executive powers vest in him and he performs various duties on behalf of the Committee of Management. Suppose it would have been a case where even the President had been elected unopposed but the post of Manager was drawn in to contest and his election on the date of the poll was disrupted. Can in that circumstance, a Committee of Management come into being without a duly elected Manager and if it has come into being, then who was to perform the various duties of the Manager. My considered view, therefore, is that for initial constitution of the Committee of Management of the members/office bearers, who have been elected according to the Scheme of Administration, election of prime functionaries such as President and Manager, is must together with majority of the members/office bearers. Only in that situation such Committee of Management shall be deemed to be properly constituted body, capable of being recognition. In the instant case, the D.I.O.S. had committed a grave illegality in recognising the members and the office bearers who were alleged to have been elected unopposed without President of the Committee having been elected, as the complete formation/constitution of the Committee had not taken place. He had recognised a Committee which was still-born.
14. In the result, I find that the Impugned order dated 24.7.1998 does not suffer from any Illegality or irregularity calling for an interference by this Court by Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the original term of three years and one month of the last Committee of Management had come to an end in March. 1998 and the D.I.O.S. was left with no option but to recommend for appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak under the provisions of the Scheme of Administration by the Regional Joint Director of Education-respondent No. 1 to overcome the vacuum. The D.I.O.S.-respondent No. 2 shall Immediately make a recommendation, if not already made, for the appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak and the Joint Director of Education-respondent No. 1 shall, without loss of time, appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak with the instructions that he shall get the new Committee elected and constituted within the specified period.
15. The writ petition turns out to be without any substance and merits and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.