COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, IV INTER COLLEGE AND ANR. Vs. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AGRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED herein is the order dated 27.1.96 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education Agra thereby according recognition to the Committee of Management constituted on 14.2.1993 with Sri Sadhu Singh and Sri Pratap Singh Yadav as Adhyaksh and Manager respectively. It brooks no dispute that the petitioners staked their claim for recognition on the basis of election held on 17.2.1993, juxtaposed with the claim of respondent Pratap Singh Yadav made for recognition of his Committee of Management on the basis of election held on 14.2.1993. Pending enquiry into the matter, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 22.7.1994 directing that the salary account of the Institution would be operated single handed under Section 5 of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. The legality of the said order was impeached in writ petition No. 26326 of 1994 which this court climaxed with a judgment and order dated 17.2.1995. The petition was disposed of with the direction that the Deputy Director of Education shall resolve the dispute within a period of three months. The order for single handed operation of salary account was extended to operate till then. It was pursuant to the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 26326 of 1994 that the dispute lobbed back to the end of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The Regional Deputy Director of Education by means of the impugned order lent recognition to the Committee of Management constituted on the basis of election held on 14.2.93 with Sri Sadhu Singh as its Adhyaksh and Sri Pratap Singh Yadav as its Manager. The claim of the petitioner's Committee of Management seeking recognition/approval was discountenanced by the Regional Deputy Director of Education by means of the impugned order. It is not disputed that the petitioner had already instituted a suit being O.S. No. 102 of 1995, Sri Babu Ram Yadav and another v. Distt. Inspector of Schools Firozabad and others, for injunction restraining the defendants to the suit by means of a permanent injunction from interfering into the working of the plaintiff No. 1 as Manager of the Institution in any manner whatsoever and also for quashing the order dated 3.5.95 passed by the Deputy Director of Education for appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak in relation to the Institution. The orders impugned in this petition have come to be passed during the pendency of the suit aforesaid. The suit, it is not -disputed, is still pending. I have heard Sri Ashok Bhushan for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Mishra for the respondents. The impugned order was assailed by the learned counsel firstly on the ground that it was an ex -parte order passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order would be eloquent of the fact that the petitioner was afforded enough opportunity of personal hearing but he missed out on the same. That the petitioner had filed his written reply in response to the notice given to him is not disputed and the petitioner also does not make scruples about the fact that he was given notice of personal hearing but he sought adjournment on ground of his illness. The Regional Deputy Director of Education disbelieved the medical certificate filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 attending the application for adjournment and it was this way that the matter was heard by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on the date fixed namely 16.1.96. In the galaxy of the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it does not commend for acceptance that the petitioners were not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. In any case, personal hearing in a proceeding under Section 16A(7) is not a sine qua non. It is enough if the view -point of the parties as set out in their representations and the material produced by them in aid of their respective claims are reasonably reckoned with by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and in the conspectus of facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot be stigmatized as having been passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(2.) AS a second string to his bow, the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impeach the finding recorded by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on the point of actual control which is regarded as the basis for the purposes of deciding the dispute under Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. The learned counsel canvassed that the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners alongwith the written reply though materially relevant, were not considered and the Regional Deputy Director of Education has failed to return a categorical finding on the question of actual control with reference to the date relevant for the purpose i.e. the date on which the dispute was first raised. Indubitably, the documents referred to in the reply dated 1.1.96 filed by the petitioners do not find specific - mention in the impugned order and there is nothing in the order to indicate that the Regional Deputy Director of Education adverted himself to the materials filed by the petitioners alongwith the reply. It is well settled that a decision reached without proper -self -direction or in ignorance of relevant material on records, detracts from a decision in the eye of law and is termed as -perverse. Such a decision impinging upon civil rights is open to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in that the error committed permeates and vitiates the decision making process itself. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has also failed to record a finding as to what point of time, the opposite party No. 3 acquired actual control.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education is quashed. The parties are directed to appear before the Regional Deputy Director of Education by 19th August, 1996 on which date, the latter shall fix a date for hearing and after conclusion of hearing, he shall take appropriate decision in the matter after taking into consideration the materials already brought on record by the parties. It may be observed that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, on conclusion of hearing, fix a date for pronouncement of the orders on which date, copy of the order shall be supplied to the parties if they are present. The Authorised Controller, shall, in the meantime, continue to manage the affairs of the Institution but he shall make over the charge to the successful party immediately upon production of a copy of the order to be passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in compliance with this order. Parties shall bear their respective costs.