GIRISH CHANDRA Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Special Appeals have been filed challenging the judgment/order dated 10-7-1996 disposing of two writ petitions, Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 36777 of 1994. While Special appeal No. 457 of 1995 has been filed by Grish Chandra, son of Trilok Chandra, the other Special Appeal has been filed by the Committee of Management, Janta Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahuwa, District Bijnor through its President Sri Praveen Singh Tyagi. 2 The learned single Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 3677 of 1994 which has given rise to Special Appeal No. 457 of 1995, and dismissed Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994, holding, inter alia, that the election of the Committee of Management held in 1994 was invalid since it was held beyond three years one month from the date of previous election. This factual position was controverted by the appellants on the ground that the election was held within the period (three years one month) from the date of approval/recognition of remit by the District Inspector of Schools Therefore, the question for consideration was whether the date of election or the date of approval/recognition of the result by the District Inspector of Schools was the starting point for calculation of the period of three years one month. The learned single Judge held that in the absence of any document to show that under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution that period was to be calculated from the date of approval/recognition, the date of election is to be taken for the purposes of such calculation. 3 The undisputed factual position is that the election, preceding the present election, was held on 17-3- 1991. The result of the said election was approved/recognised by the District Inspector of Schools on 30- 4-1991. The election of the present Committee of Management was held on 29-4-1994. 4 Shri Shasinandan learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the learned single Judge has clearly erred in holding that there was document produced by the appellants to that in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution there was no provision for holding election within three years one month from the date of approval/recognition of the result by the District Inspector of Schools. He submitted that the Schema of Administration, filed as Annexure 1 to the petition, clearly contains provision in this regard. Referring to Para 9 sub-para (4) of Annexure 1, he urged that on a fair reading of the provision in the Scheme of Administration it is that the period is to be calculated from the date of approval/recognition of the result of election by the District Inspector of Schools. 5. Shri Ashok Bhushnn, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 strenuously urged that the Schema of Administration training postu lates that the period is to be calculated from the date of election and not from the date of approval/ recognition of the result by the District Inspec tor of Schools. The relevant provisions of the Scheme of Administration are contained in Paras 8 and 9 (4), which are quoted hereunder : @hindi On a fair reading of the aforequoted provisions t is clear that while Para 8 of the Scheme of Administration makes provision regarding term of the Committee of Management and demarcates cessation of the term on the expiry of three years and one month, sub-para (4) of Para 9 makes provi sion specifically regarding holding of election and approval/recognition of the newly elected Committee of Management by the District Inspector of Schools. It is specifically provided in sub-para (4) that the newly elected Committee or Management will take over charge of the management on the expiry of the term of the outgoing Committee of Management only after accord of approval/recognition by the District Inspector of Schools From this provision, as we read them, the position is manifest that till approval/recogmtion is accorded by the District Inspector of Schools the newly elected Committee is not legally entitled to take charge of the management. Therefore, the relevant date of assumption of office or taking over charge of management by the Committee is the date of approval/recognition by the District Inspector of Schools. In view of the specific Provision made in sub-para (4) of Para 9, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the date of election is the relevant date for computation of period of three years and month cannot be accepted The learned single Judge was clearly m holding that no document was filed by the appellants to show that there was no provision in the Scheme of Administration to support their contention that the relevant date for the purpose is the date of accord of approval/recognition by the District Inspector of Schools. It therefore, follows that the judgment based on such erroneous position is not sustainable. 6. Shri Ashok Bhushan placed great reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Brdg. Hoshiar Singh Memorial Inter College, Shamli and Others. v. Deputy Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut and Others. , 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1728 wherein this Court held that the date of attestation of signature of Manager of the Committee if Management cannot be taken as the relevant date for calculation of the period of three years one month. This Court quoted with approval the following observations from the decision in the case of Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi and Others. , 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1183 : "attestation is only for the purpose of distribution of salary under the Payment of Salary Act. It is true that the functioning of the Committee of Management is varied and is not confined merely for the purpose of distribution of salary and thus the attestation of the signatures by the District Inspector of Schools could not be starting point of the life of the Committee of Management. It may be in a given case from the date of the election's results are declared as urged by the respondents. How ever, in case the election took place earlier than the prescribed period of the earlier Committee of Management coming to an end. In such cases it cannot be said that the period started from date of election. Question, therefore, would be as to what would be the date which can be said that the period of the Committee of Management starts. We find that there is nothing in the Act, Rules or under the Scheme of Administra tion. However, we feel after perusing the Scheme of Adminis tration, the various provisions of the Act and the Rules that its period would start running either from the date of election validly held where the period of earlier Committee of Manage ment has already come to an end prior to this date and there being no dispute or from the date : the elected Committee of Management take over this charge of the management. " In the present case it is not the case of any party that the date of attesta tion of Manager's signature is the relevant date. The decision, therefore, does not render any assistant to the case of the respondent. From the discussion of Paragraph 4 of the judgment it is clear that the answer to this point depends on the provisions in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution in question. As noted earlier, the provision in the Scheme of Administration, in the instant case, are indicative of the position that the relevant date for the purposes of calculation of term of the office is the data of accord of approval/recognition by the District Inspector of Schools or take over or the management by the Committee. Since the former is earlier in point of time, it can be safely said that at least that should be the date for the purpose and calculated on that basis the selection of the appel lant Committee was not beyond the prescribed period (three years and one month ). 7. The Deputy Director of Education by his order date 12-10-199 held the election invalid for certain other reasons also. Ha held that the president is father of the Member of Committee of Management which is prohibited under the Scheme of Administration ; that one Ram Niwas Tyagi was not a Member of the Society. In the writ petition it has been stated that the Deputy Director of Education passed the order dated 12-10-1994 without giving opportunity of hearing. We have already held the view of the Deputy Director of Education that the election was invalid for the reason that it was not conducted within three years and one month the last date of election to be illegal, the Special Appeal No. 458 of 1995 is allowed, the order dated 12-10-1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Edu cation is hereby quashed and in respect of other points it will be open to him considered the matter afresh after given an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8. The Special Appeal No. 457 of 1995 arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 36777 of 1994 wherein the petitioner had challenged the order dated 1-10-1994, passed by District Inspector of Schools, recognising the election held on 29-4-1994. On a complaint made, the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 12-10-1994 had disapproved the election held on 29-4- 1994. This Court having set aside the said order and having directed to consider the matter in the light of the observations made in Special Appeal No. 458 of 1995, he Writ Petition No. 36777 of 1994 has become infructous. Accordingly, Special Appeal No. 457 of 1995 is allowed and Writ Petition No, 36777 of 1994 is dismissed. 9. The parties shall bear their own costs. .