ROHIT CHAUHAN Vs. U P STATE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M. K. Gupta, assisted by Sri Nitin Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Mehta, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 12 and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who is a mute spectator in the entire proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs, who applied for membership of the General Body of the institution under the scheme of administration framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. THE Committee of Management by its resolution dated 18.11.2006, accepted the proposal of inducting new members, namely, the petitioners, and directed the treasurer to accept the amount on or before the next meeting of the Committee of Management. It has come on record that the treasurer deposited the amount on 13.12.2006. THE Committee of Management next met on 2.1.2007, on which date, 20 members of the Committee of Management ratified the earlier resolution of 18.11.2006 and the petitioners became members of the General Body of the Educational Institution. It transpires that the election process started w.e.f. 27.11.2007 to elect new office bearers of the Committee of Management. It transpires that trouble started when respondents No. 5 to 11 apparently made a complaint before the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, (hereinafter referred to as D. I.O.S., who is alleged to have passed an ex parte order holding that the petitioners were not eligible to become members of the General Body of the Educational Institution on the ground that the acceptance of the membership fee was in violation of Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration. THE D.I.O.S. vide its order dated 19.12.2007 held that the induction of the petitioners as members was invalid. This order of D.I.O.S. was apparently passed after the election process had been initiated.

(3.) THE bone of contention is the interpretation of Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration. THE question as to whether the said provision is mandatory or directory and whether the said provision provides a forum before the D.I.O.S. for adjudication of a dispute with regard to the grant of membership to a person are all questions to be adjudicated by the trial court in the suit and any comment on this aspect of the matter at this stage would prejudice the trial court in giving its finding, but this much is clear, that the petitioners were inducted as members by a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 18.11.2006. Admittedly, the amount was deposited on 13.12.2006 and the resolution of 18.11.2006 was ratified by the C.O.M. on 2.1.2007. At the present moment, prima facie it appears that the petitioners became members of the General Body of the Institution.