LAWS(ALL)-1993-5-126

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, LAL BAHADUR SHASHTRI UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDHYALAYA, KAKRAI, DISTRICT BULANDSHAHR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 1ST REGION, MEERUT AND OTHERS

Decided On May 18, 1993
Committee Of Management, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Kakrai, District Bulandshahr Appellant
V/S
Deputy Director Of Education, 1St Region, Meerut And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this petitioner pertains to constitution of Committee of Management of Lal Bahadur Shastri Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kakrai. District Bulandshahr. There was an authorised controller in the Vidyalaya. 18-10-1992 was fixed for holding election for constituting a Committee of Management. The appellant was aggrieved this and approached this court through writ petition. This court was of the opinion that the dispute of the nature raised by the appellant could more appropriately be raised before the Civil Court. Accordingly, by judgment and order dated 16-10-1992, the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant thereafter filed civil suit on 17-10-1992 and made a prayer for interim injunction to restrain the holding of the meeting The interim injunction was not granted, with the consequence, that the election took place on scheduled date viz. 18-10 1992.

(2.) Appellant claimed that at the meeting held on 18-10-1992 Sri Ganga Sarau Sharma was elected President and Babu Ram as Manager. The claim of the appellant is controverted by the respondent No 4 Smt. Raj Bala Sharma who claims that she was elected Manager. It appears that rival claimant sent papers to the District Inspector of Schools for attestation of the signature of the Manager. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 17-11-1992 attested the signature of the respondent Smt. Raj Bala Sharma. Thereafter the Deputy Director of Education discharged the authorised controller. The appellant again approached this court to challenge the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 17-11-1992.

(3.) In the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant raised some of the disputes which had been raised by him in the earlier writ petition and in the suit referred to herein above He also challenged the legality of the order dated 17-11-1992 on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was aforesaid.