THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, JANTA UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER Vs. D.I.O.S. DEORIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Committee of Management of Janata Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Baikunthpur, Deoria was elected for three years on 20 -5 -1990. The petitioner was elected Manager of the said institution. The petitioner has alleged that suddenly he came to know that on 28 -1 -91 the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signature of respondent No. 2 as Manager of the Institution. Respondent No. 2 was admittedly elected as Junior Vice President of the institution in the election held on 20 -5 -90. The petitioner has alleged that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before attesting the signature of the respondent No. 2, and the rule of natural justice was violated. The petitioner has also contended that under the Scheme of Administration there is no provision for passing no confidence motion, and for this contention the petitioner has relied on the decision of this court in Ajab Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, 1980 UPLBEC 308 wherein it has been held that if there is no provision in the Scheme of Administration for passing no confidence motion, no such motion can be passed. It was also contended that no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools before attesting the signature of the respondent No. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the record. It has been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter -affidavit that the joint meeting of the general body of the society and committee of management was held on 15 -11 -1991 in which a no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner No. 2. A true copy of the resolution of no confidence motion dated 15 -11 -1991 is Annexure CA -4 to counter -affidavit. The first question to be decided is whether there is any provision for no confidence motion in the scheme of Administration, copy of which has been filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Clause 13 of the scheme of Administration states.

(2.) THE next contention of the learned counsel was that no opportunity of hearing was given for attesting the signature of the respondent No. 2. This too is denied in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit in which it was held that due notice was given to the petitioner No. 2 of meeting held on 5 -7 -1991, however, since I am directing that the Regional Dy. Director of Education should now give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No. 2, it is not necessary for me to go into this question in detail.