COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, NONAPUR INTER COLLEGE, KANPUR Vs. THE DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, KANPUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions raise more or less common points of facts and law for decision and may, therefore, be conveniently disposed of together. They relate to a dispute with regard to the Committee of Management. Nonapur Inter. College, Nonapur, district Kanpur between two rival factions lei by Sri Anant Ram (Petitioner No. 2) and Sri Gaya Prasad Shastri (Respondent No. 2) respectively, each of whom claims to be the Manager of the institution. The crucial date in the case is 13-11-197 7 when the election of the Committee of Management is alleged to have been held. The version of the petitioners is that in the said election Petitioner No. 2 and some other members along with him were elected members of the Committee of Management whereas according to tee respondents in the election in held on the same date Respondent No. 2 was elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management. It may be noted that the proceedings or election in the meeting dated 13-11-1977 were conducted under the supervision of an observer sent by the then District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur. However, on 13-1-1978 the then District Inspector of Schools verified the signature of petitioner No. 2 who claimed to be the Manager elected. The contention of the respondent is that this was done without any knowledge to Respondent No. 2, that the proceedings book of the alleged election favour of petitioner no. 2 was never submitted by him before the District Inspector of Schools while respondent no. 2 submitted the proceedings book of the election in his favour before the District Inspector of Schools Kanpur The latter bore the signature of the observer in whose personae the election of the Committee of Management had been conducted. Therefore, the allegation of respondent no. 2 is that the then District Inspector of Schools, without taking into consideration the minutes of the meeting and the respect of the observer had vilified the signature of petitioner no. 2 on 13 1-1978. A perusal of the minute of the riveting (Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 2) shows that respondent no. 2 and others had been elected members of the Committee oI Management and respondent no. 2 had been elected as the Manager. 1 hereafter respondent no. 2 approached the District Inspector of Schools for attestation of his signature and then he came to know of the fact that the signature of petitioner no. 2 as Manager of the Institution had already been verified. In these circumstances the District Inspector of Schools passed another order on 31-5-1978 whereby he recognised Sri Anant Ram (petitioner no. 2) and directed that Sri Gaya Prasad Shastri (respondent no. 2) who had been Manager prior to the election held on 13-11-1977 would continue to be recognised as the Manager of the institution. It was against this order that petitioner no. 1 filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 4997 of 1978 which was allowed by this Court on 15-11-1978 and the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-5-1978 was quashed on the sole ground that it had been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner no. 2 who had earlier been recognised as the Manager of the College by order dated 13-1-1978.

(2.) It is alleged that in the mean time two persons belonging to the group of petitioner no. 2 had filed Civil Suit No. 35 of 1977 on 19-11-1977 in the Court of Munsif, Hawaii, Kanpur challenging the Validity of the election dated 13-11-1977 of the Committee of Management in which respondent no. 2 was elected as Manager. This suit was dismissed on 22-12-1978 On the basis of this decree of the civil court the District Inspector of Schools passed another order on 5-1-1979 accepting respondent no. 2 as the Manager. The petitioners challenged the above order by filing Civil Misc. Writ No. 395 of 1979 which was admitted on 12-1-1979 by this court and an interim order was also passed staying the opera lion of the-impugned Older. During the pendency of that writ petition the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 1-2-1979 recalling his order dated 5-1-1979 and called upon both parties to appear before him with all the documents etc. on which they pro nosed to rely for determining the legality or otherwise of the election dated 13-11-1977 with regard the Committee of Management The petitioner applied for amendment of the writ petition for the purpose of adding another relief, namely the quashing of the other of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1-2-1979. The amendment application was allowed and the operation of the order dated 1-2-1979 was stayed. That stay order was later vacated on 15-10-1979. Both parties were invited by the District Inspector of Schools for proving their respective claims. Accordingly they appeared b fore him on 3-11-1979 and after hearing them and scrutinising the material furnished by them the District Inspector of Schools passed the order dated 19-11-1979 recognising respondent no. 2 as the Manager of the institution. Civil Misc. Writ No. 9843 of 1979 is directed against that order.

(3.) It may be noticed that the order dated 5-1-1979 which was the subject-matter of Civil Misc. Writ No. 395 of 1979 had been latter recalled by the District Inspector of Schools himself and hence that writ petition has become virtually infructuous. Of course, the subsequent order dated 1-2-1979 wherein the District Inspector of Schools said that he would hear both parties again on the matter in controversy has also been challenged in that writ petition by means of an amendment but as a result of the hearing afforded to both parties the order dated 19-11-1979 was passed which is the subject-matter of Civil Misc Writ No. 9843 of 1979. Hence, the real question which now arises for decision is as to whether the order dated 19-11-1979 is valid. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter and review his previous order dated 13-1-1979 recognising petitioner no 2 as the Manager of the College. In this connection it is significant that in the decision of this Court dated 15-11-1978 passed in Civil Misc. writ No. 4997 of 1978 there was no adjudication on the merits of the dispute and the order dated 31-5-1978 had been quashed on the solitary ground that it had been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing o petitioner no. 2. In other words, there was no order restraining the District Inspector of Schools from deciding the matter in dispute after hearing both parties.