SHYAM SUNDER MISRA Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 25th May, 1999 (Annexure 24 to the writ petition) and order dated 12th May, 1999 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) and the order dated 25th May, 1999 (Annexure 23 to the writ petition) have since been challenged in this writ petition. The first two order were passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Chitrakoot (in short, the DIOS) while the third order was passed by he learned District Judge, Chitrakoot in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1999. The dispute in fact is with regard to the election of the Committee of Management of Tulsi Inter College, Banda, a recognized institution alleged to have been held on 20th May, 1999.

(2.) Mr. A.P. Shahi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that according to Clause 8 of the scheme of administration, the life of the Committee of Management, which is of three years and one month duration, was due to expire on 13th May, 1999 and as such, no election could be held on 20th May, 1999. He further contended that the petitioner is one of the life member and as such, he is interested and, therefore, he has locus standi to challenge the election on various grounds. The respondents themselves had moved writ petition No. 18452 of 1999, whereon an order dated 15th May, 1999 was passed (Annexure 16 to the writ petition) by which three weeks time was granted for finalization of the electoral college and after two weeks thereof the election was directed to be held. It appears that the election was alleged to have been held on 20th May, 1999 on the basis of an alleged order dated 13th May, 1999 passed by the DIOS, Banda, without disclosing the existence of the said order when the order dated 15th May, 1999 was obtained. According to him, in view of the order dated 15th May, 1999, the DIOS was bound to finalize the electoral college within three weeks and hold the election thereafter. It is further contended that many of the members who were enrolled appears to be the residents of different districts and nothing was disclosed as to how they could become members. He again contends that the petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 166 of 1999 on which an interim order was passed on 19th May, 1999. Despite communication of the interim order of injunction on 19th May, 1999 the alleged election was held on 20th May, 1999. He contends further that by reason of Clause 9(3) of the scheme of administration, the list of the members of the general body is to be finalized and notified and displayed in the Notice Board one year before the elections are scheduled to be held. But no notice was ever issued. The allegation that such a list was sent on 10th April, 1998 by the respondent No. 4, appears to be a concoction as is apparent from Annexure 5, a letter dated 26th August, 1998 of the DIOS demanding such list of members from the respondent No. 4. The contents of the letter dated 26th August, 1998 of the DIOS pre-supposes that no list was submitted till the issue of the said letter, By a letter dated 12th November, 1998 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), again the DIOS informed the respondent No. 4 that the list was not submitted as required under the scheme of administration. This situation finds support fro letter dated 27th February, 1999, Annexure 13, 8th April, 1999, Annexure 14, 26th April, 1999, Annexure 15 to the counter affidavit respectively. He next contends that the alleged election was held in violation of the letters dated 8th April, 1999 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) and 10th May, 1999 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) by which the Joint Director of Education had directed a detailed inquiry into the issue of membership and only thereafter to proceed with the election. The election notified on 12th April, 1999 could not be held because the membership list was not finalized. In such circumstance, in order to seek advantage, the respondents had filed Writ Petition No. 18452 of 1999 and obtained the order dated 15th May, 1999 as detailed above. In such circumstances, Mr. Shahi contends that the alleged election held on 20th May, 1999 be cancelled and a fresh elections he held by the Prabandh Sanchalak after finalizing the list of members giving an opportunity to all the parties.

(3.) Mr. Anil Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 on the other hand contends that the question of finalization of the membership is no more open since the said exercise was concluded by order dated 26th August, 1996 (Annexure CA 10) passed by the DIOS. The said order was challenged in writ petition No. 37719 of 1996 by the High Court declined to interfere with the order dated 26th August, 1996 as would be apparent from the order dated 26th November, 1996 (Annexure CA 11) on the said writ petition. Thus the list of members having been approved, the same having been signed on 10th April, 1998, this question can never be reopened. According to him, writ petition No. 18452 of 1999 was moved for an order that the school authorities may be permitted to hold the election within 14th May, 1999 since the DIOS was not permitting it to hold the election. Since the list of members stood already finalized, therefore, there is no necessity to finalize the list of members in terms of the order dated 15th May, 1999 passed in writ petition No. 18452 of 1999. As such the election was rightly held on 20th May, 1999 in terms of the order dated 13th May, 1999. According to him the recognition of the earlier Committee of Management having been given on 14th June, 1996, the life of the Committee of Management was due to expire on 14th July, 1996 though the election was held on 14th April, 1996, which could not be treated to be the date since cognition was given on 14th June, 1996. As such the election was held well within time. Alternatively he submits that even if the life of the Committee of Management was due to expire on 14th May, 1996 till then the election having been held six days after the life of the Committee of Member had expired, cannot be discarded. The triffle delay in holding the election cannot stand in the way as has been held in the case of B.N.B. Inter College, Mariyahu, Jaunpur v. Regional Deputy Director of Education Vth Region. Varanasi, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1542 and in the case of Smt. Vimala Devi v. Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, (1997) 3 ESC 1807, and in the case of Committee of Management, Mubarakpur Intermediate College v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, (1997) 2 ESC 783 (All). In support of his contention that the term of the Committee of Management would expire after three years and one month from the date of grant of approval, he had cited the decision in the case of Girish Chandra v. Rajendra, (1996) 3 ESC 152 (All). He had further contended that the petitioner has not locus standi and that he had approached the Civil Court. Therefore, he cannot maintain this writ petition. In this regard, he had relied on a decision in the case of Smt. Bimla Devi (supra) and in the case of, Committee of Management, Janta Intermediate College, Region I, Meerut. (1991) 1 UPLBEC 170. He then contends that in view of the provision contained in Order XXXIX. Rule 2 proviso (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in U.P., there cannot be any injunction restraining holding of an election. He then contends that even if there is no doubt with regard to membership, the High Court cannot deal with the same as is held in the case of Basanta Prasad Srivastava v. State of U.P., (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1333, and in the case of Committee of Management, Brahmo Sri Ram Krishna Inter College v. DIOS, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 461. He further contends that the order dated 15th May. 1999 passed in writ petition No. 18452 of 1999 has since been complied with. For all these reasons, he prays that this writ petition should be dismissed.