The dispute in the suit from which the writ petition arises concerns the order of Deputy Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) dated 7.10.2008 in connection with the management of the Institution Sri Ganga Prasad Jan Seva Inter College, Karvi, which is a recognized and government aided Institution under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The D.I.O.S. by the aforesaid order had cancelled the membership of certain members of general body of the society and has approved the elections of the Committee of Management held thereafter. The said order was challenged by the respondent No.1 in a Writ Petition No.60583 of 2008 which was dismissed on 24.11.08 with liberty to file a civil suit.
Pursuant to the above, respondent No.1 instituted a suit No.41 of 2009 for declaring the order of the D.I.O.S. dated 7.10.08 as null and void and the elections of the Committee of Management held on 16.5.09 to be illegal.
In the said suit one of the issues framed i.e. issue No.6 is to the effect as to whether the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court.
The said issue was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue. Petitioners contended that in view of the special remedy provided under Section 16-A(7) of the Act the jurisdiction of the civil court stands ousted.
The court of first instance repelled the contention of the petitioners and decided the aforesaid issue in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.1 holding the suit to be within jurisdiction of the civil court. The aforesaid order has been upheld by the revisional court vide judgment and order dated 11.4.2012.
The above two orders in connection with issue No.6 have been impugned in the present writ petition.
The submission of Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the special remedy provided under Section 16-A(7) of the Act for resolving the dispute of the Committee of Management the jurisdiction of the civil court stands excluded. In support he has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court 2011 (5) ADJ 195 (DB) Committee of Management, Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College, Amroha and another Vs. State of U.P. and others.
It is well acknowledged that in view of Section 9 C.P.C. all disputes of a civil nature are required to be adjudicated by the civil court unless their jurisdiction is specifically excluded. It provides that the courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits which are expressly or impliedly barred.
In view of above provision as the dispute regarding declaration of the order of the D.I.O.S. to be null and void and the elections of the Committee of Management to be illegal is of a civil nature, the matter is apparently cognizable by a civil court.
There is no express provision which bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in this regard. It is only by virtue of Section 16-A(7) of the Act that the learned counsel contends that the jurisdiction of the civil court stands impliedly ousted.
Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 reads as under:-
"Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons 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 purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise:
Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing.
Explanation-In 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."
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that in the event of dispute with regard to management of an institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education is competent to make an enquiry and recognize such persons as may be found to be in actual control of the affairs to constitute the Committee of Management of the institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise.
The aforesaid provision as such contemplates according of recognition to the Committee of Management having actual control over the institution by way of an interim arrangement subject to final adjudication of dispute by the competent court.
In U.P. the D.I.O.S. is required to attest the signatures of the principal and manager of the institution that is recognized and is in grant in aid list for the purposes of payment of salary to the teachers and other employees. It is for the above purpose that previously DIOS was required to satisfy himself as to who are the valid office bearers of the Committee of Management of the institution in the event of any dispute regarding elections or rival claims. Subsequently, Section 16-A to the Act was inserted which under Sub-Section (7) provided for adjudication of such disputes by the Deputy Director of Education. The power of Deputy Director of Education exercised under Section 16-A (7) of the Act is the same as it used to be exercised by the DIOS as to satisfaction of the actual control of the affairs of the institution for the purposes of disbursement of salary under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (payment of salaries of Teachers and Other employees) Act, 1971.
A Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College and another Vs. Deputy Director of Education and Others (2005) U.P. LBEC 85 observed as under:-
"This Court has held in a number of cases, that for the purposes of enable himself to pay the salaries to the teachers on the bills submitted by a Manager, it was necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to recognize him and to decide the dispute relating to his right. Such a decision was, of course, summary in nature and was subject to the decision of a Civil Court. As there were serious doubts about the desirability of the District Inspector of Schools, being conferred such a power, by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981, a new forum was created. By section 16-A (7) the Deputy Director of Education was conferred the power to decide the dispute. This only brings about the change of forum. The Deputy Director of Education is not an Appellate Authority over the District Inspector of Schools in respect of cases earlier decided by the District Inspector of Schools. The power of the Deputy Director of Education is the same as used to be exercised by the District Inspector of Schools."
In view of observation made by the Full Bench read in the light of Section 16-A(7) of the Act, there can be no two opinions that the above power of the Deputy Director of Education now that of Regional Level Committee is limited in nature and it decides the dispute only with regard to actual control of affairs of the institution the right to manage the institution and that too in a summary manner which is always subject to decision of the court of competent jurisdiction which happens to be none else than the civil court.
The decision cited by the learned counsel Committee of Management (Supra) does not lay down that the civil court has no jurisdiction in such matters. It only says when two rival claims of the Committee of Management are put forth the appropriate course open to the D.I.O.S. is to make a reference to the Regional Level Committee for recognizing the Committee of Management in accordance with Section 16-A(7) of the Act and that the D.I.O.S. cannot enter into the validity of the elections. Therefore, a civil suit for setting aside the expulsion of some members of the general body or for adjudicating the validity of the order of D.I.O.S. in connection with the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution is not barred in law.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the courts below have not erred in deciding issue No.6 in the suit in affirmative in favour of the plaintiffs respondents and against the petitioners. The provision of Section 16-A(7) of the Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court in connection with elections of Committee of Management of institutions.
Additionally, the dispute regarding the rights of the parties is yet to be decided in the suit. Petitioners would get a chance to agitate all the issues including issue No.6, if necessary in appeal after the decision of the suit.
In this view of the matter also, I am of the view that there is no case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in the manner and the writ petition has to fail. It is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.9.2012 piyush