ANNAPURNA UCHCHATTAR MADHYAMIC VIDYALAYA, GURVALIA, AND OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, V1ITH REGION, GORAKHPUR DEORIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Annapurna Shiksha Parishad, Gurvalia, Deoria, is is a registered society (hereinafter referred to as the Society). It runs an intermediate college known as Chri Annapurna Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gurvalia, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the College). The affairs of the College are looked after by a committee of management constituted in accordance with the scheme of administration framed under Sec. 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One of the elections of the committee of management of the College was held in the year 1978 and petitioner no. 3 was elected as the manager of the committee of management in that election. The term of the Committee of Management was three years under the scheme of administration. According to the petitioners an election of the committee of management was held on 17th May, 1981, in which petitioner no. 3 was again elected as the manager. Respondents 3 and 4 on the other hand set up a case that on the same date a meeting of the Society was held in the evening in which respondent no. 3 was elected the President and respondent no. 4 the Manager of the committee of management. Since a dispute in this behalf arose the matter came up for determination before the Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur, respondent no. 1 in pursuance of the requirements oi sub-section (7) of Sec. 16-A of the Act as inserted by U.P. Act 1 of 1981. Respondent no. 1 by his order 3rd Aug., 1911 held that respondents 3 and 4 were in effective control of the affairs of the institution is completed by sub-section (7) of Sec. 16-A of the Ac, as President and Manager of the committee of management respectively having been elected as such on 17th May, 1981. It is this clear of respondent no. 1 which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioners the impugned order deserves to be quashed inasmuch as it is partly based on irrelevant considerations and partly on material which was never brought to the notice of the petitioners so as to enable them to give an effective reply in respect of that material.

(3.) Before dealing with that the various submissions made by counsel for the petitioners we consider it necessary to narrate at this place in brief some more facts. According to respondents 3 and 4 in a meeting of the Society held on 3rd May, 1981, a vote of no-confidence was passed against the President, the Vice-President and the Manager of the committee of management elected in 1978 and on the same date respondent no. 3 was elected as the President and respondent no. 4 as the manager of the College for the remaining term of the committee of management. Their case further was that on 3rd May, 1981 itself it was decided to hold another meeting of the Society on 17th May, 1981, to elect a new committee of management and that in pursuance of that resolution a meeting of the Society was held on 17th May, 1981, in which respondent no. 3 was elected as the President and respondent no. 4 as the manager of the College.