COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR SAMPURNA NAND SANSKRIT VISHWAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A registered Society known as Shri Ram Deo Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Bareri, Tahsil Mariyahun, District Jaunpur runs an institution known as Shri Ram Deo Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Bareri, District Jaunpur (here in after referred to as the Maha Vidyalaya), which is an affiliated institution to Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the University). There being dispute between the two rival committees of management of the Maha Vidyalaya, the Assistant Registrar of the University by his order dated 19 -6 -1982 recognised the petitioner No. 2 as the Manager; but at the instance of respondent No. 6, the Assistant Registrar by the order dated 26 -6 -1982 recalled his earlier order dated 19 -6 -1982 and thereafter referred the dispute to the Vice -Chancellor of the University for his decision. Against this order of the Assistant Registrar, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 10721 of 1982, which was dismissed on 25 -1 -1983 by this Court on the ground that as the dispute between the parties has been referred to the Vice -Chancellor for decision, it is no: a fit case for interference. The Vice -Chancellor thereafter by his letter dated 13 -5 -1985 constituted a panel for spot inspection. The Vice -Chancellor on the basis of the compromise entered into between Sri Badri Narain Dubey and Sri Sabhapati Upadhyaya passed the impugned order on 2 -8 -1990. The terms of the compromise, as mentioned in the impugned order are as follows: (i) Sri Badri Narain Dubey will be life long President and after him his successor will be elected by general body, (ii) Sri Sabhapati Upadhyaya will be the Manager, which is acceptable to Sri Badri Narain Dubey, (iii) the President and the Manager will constitute Committee of Management and general body, (iv) President and Manager will appoint Principal and the Assistant Teachers, (v) Movable and immovable properties of the Maha Vidyalaya will be managed by both the President and the Manager, (vi) in future all appointments shall be made with the consent of the President and the Manager. On the basis of the compromise containing the aforesaid terms, the Vice -Chancellor by the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has directed that the aforesaid compromise is approved and dispute of management stands resolved, according to which Sri Badri Narain Dubey and Sri Sabhapati Upadhyaya will be President and Manager of the Maha Vidyalaya respectively. It is against this order of the Vice -Chancellor dated 2 -8 -1990 that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on the ground: (i) that the Vice -Chancellor after the amendment of Statute 12.28 of the first statutes of the University in 1985 has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college of the University and the person competent to decide such a dispute is the Regional Deputy Director of Education, (ii) Vice -Chancellor has not recorded a finding about the actual possession and control of the college properties, and (iii) that order is against the Act. Statute and Ordinance framed thereunder.

(2.) SRI R.P. Misra, learned counsel for the University and Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 have disputed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have supported the impugned order, in this connection Sri Sankatha Rai has also filed a written argument and Sri R.P. Misra, learned counsel for the University has very fairly placed before me the decisions of this Court relating to the controversy involved in the present case.

(3.) A Division Bench of this court in the case of Brahm Deo Tripathi v. Vice -Chancellor, 1988 (14) A.L.R. 3 (Sum) :, 1988 U.P.L.B.E.C. 104 has laid down that Statute 12.28 of the Statutes provides a forum for getting the dispute pertaining to management adjudicated by the Deputy Director of Education and the Vice -Chancellor in view of the aforesaid Statute has ceased to have any power to adjudicate on the question as to who is legally constituted managing committee. This Court has accordingly declared that after the amendment of the aforesaid Statutes the Deputy Director of Education has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the controversy on the basis of the actual control. Another Division Bench in the case of Committee of Management v. U.P. Kul -Sachiv Writ Petition No. 75977 of 1990 decided on 7 -3 -1990 after noting the apparent conflict between Section 2(13) of the Act and Statute 12.28 of the Statutes has held that when there is a bona fide dispute between the two rival committees before the Vice -Chancellor, he will stay his hands before granting recognition and will allow the Regional Deputy Director of Education to decide the dispute and it is only after he has received the decision of the Deputy Director of Education that the Vice -Chancellor can grant recognition under Section 2(13) of the Act. It was further observed that if there is no real or bona fide dispute between the two rival committees then Vice -Chancellor will himself straight away exercise the powers of recognising the committee of management. There is no conflict between the aforesaid two decisions of this Court inasmuch as in both these between two rival committees of management, it will be resolved by the Deputy Director of Education.