COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SWASNI PARAM HANS UNCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA DEORIA Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. In this case, the order, dated 4th of November, 1995 is impugned by the said order the election of the Managing Committee of the petitioner and the appointment of petitioner No. 2 as Manager of the School were cancelled after the order recognising the Committee of Manage ment and authorising the signature of the Manager was stayed by order, dated 22nd March, 1995 which was challenged in writ petition No. 8611 of 1995. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 31st March, 1995 to the extent that the payment of salary of the teachers and the staff shall be made by the District Basic Education Officer by single operation and all financial matters shall be handled either by the said officer or by some other officer authorised by him. The petitioner shall be continuing in respect of other administrative functions. It was provided in the said order that in the meantime, the District Basic Education Officer shall be free to conclude the enquiry in the matter after giving due notice to the parties. After the said order was passed, after giving notice to the parties, the District Basic Education Officer had passed the impugned order, dated 4th May, 1995 which is under challenge in writ petition No. 33360 of 1995.

(2.) MR. Sahi appearing in support of both the petitions contends that so far as writ petition No. 33360 of 1995 is concerned, the order, dated 4th November, 1995 cannot be sustained on the ground that he has purported to decide the question of validity of the election and the membership of the society which is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the District Basic Educa tion Officer, though he fairly conceded that the U. P. Basic Education Act does not contain any provision under which the District Basic Education Officer is authorised to decide the said question, but, however, the said question was gone into and decided in the case of Committee of Manage ment of Sri Pyare Lal Shastri Junior High School Jajau, v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Agra, 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1601. According to him, since there is no provision authorising the said Officer to determine the question of validity of the election, therefore, the said finding in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Relying on the said judgment, he contends that for the purpose of ascertaining as to whom the said officer has to authorise for the purpose of carrying on the day to day administration of the school, he may summa rily decide the same. According to him, the remedy of the respondents is by way of a civil suit and the District Basic Education Officer cannot embark upon deciding those questions which fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. While passing the said order, the officer had travelled beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the authority vested in him. He further contends that the said officer cannot decide the question of no confidence nor he can decide the question of membership. According to him, the said officer has no authority to pass any interim order or stay the order passed by him recog nising the Committee of Management. MR. Sahi contends further that the last election of the Committee of Management had taken place on 15th June, 1991. According to the Scheme of the Management of the said Insti tution, the life of the Managing Committee was five years. Subsequently Scheme of Management was modified according to the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which has since been approved wherein the life of the Committee of Management has been prescribed for the duration of the period of three years. The said new scheme of the Management has been approved by the appropriate authority, namely, the Deputy Director of Education. But however, the said school has not yet been recognised as High School or Intermediate School. According to him, as soon the new Scheme of the Management has been approved, the Com mittee of Management is to be governed by the said scheme. He further contends alternatively that the term of Management cannot be curtailed. Even if the new scheme has not been accepted, then also the Committee of Management elected on 15th June, 1991 is to continue till five years, namely, June 1996. Therefore, the authority of the petitioner cannot be withheld by the Committee of Management pursuant to the alleged no confidence motion which according to him was carried on not by the general body but by the Committee of Management. The old scheme of Management does not pro vide for passing any no confidence motion by the Committee of Manage ment. According to him, since there is no provision for passing any no confidence motion, it is implied that only a General Body can do so. Inas much as it was the General Body who has elected the Manager, therefore, the General Body alone can recall him. He relies on the finding of the Dis trict Basic Education Officer wherein it has been found that the no confidence motion was passed by the Committee of Management. Therefore, the said no confidence motion is to be ignored and thus the petitioner is to continue as Manager.

(3.) AS has been rightly submitted by Sri Sahi that the Basic Education Officer, though the statute is silent about the authority to decide the question with regard to election, yet it can decide the question with whom he has to deal for the purposes of disbursement of salary paid under the Payment of Salaries Act (Act No. 24 of 1979 ). For the purposes of deciding as to who is in of active control of the management of the institution and for such purpose though he may go into the question of election incidentally but he cannot act as the election tribunal for deciding the validity of the election. By now it is established principle of law that the authority though can incidentally go into the questions of election for the purposes of deciding effective actual control over the management but it cannot act as a election tribunal usurp the jurisdiction of a civil court, in this regard. But while deciding the question of election incidentally the authority is confined only to the extent to look into as to whether a person claiming to be the Com mittee of Management is a rank outsider or not.