COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHANTANAND SWATANTRA BHARAT INTER COLLEGE AMILA Vs. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 28.5.1998, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, passed by Regional Joint Director of Education (for short 'R.J.D.E.') Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, recognising the Committee of Management of Satya Deo Rai--respondent No. 3 who claims himself to be the Manager, has been challenged and it is prayed that the said order be quashed and the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the affairs of the Management of Swatantra Bharat Inter College. Arnila, district Mau run by the petitioners' Committee of Management, of which Shambhu Nath-petitioner No. 2 is the Manager.

(2.) Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri S. K. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Bhushan. learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3--Satya Deo Rai as well as learned standing counsel.

(3.) There is a recognised and aided educational institution run in the name of Swatantra Bharat Inter College, Amila. district Mau. The institution is governed and managed by a scheme of administration. Last elections to constitute the Committee of Management were held admittedly on 5.2.1995 in which Raj Kumar Ojha and Satya Deo Rai were respectively elected as President and Manager. Shambhu Nath, petitioner No. 2 was elected as Assistant Manager. Signatures of Satya Deo Rai, respondent No. 3 were duty attested by the District Inspector of Schools (for short 'D.I.O.S.') on 23.2.95. Since then Satya Deo Rai has been in the effective control of the affairs of the institution, which is being managed by him. The term of the Committee of Management under the scheme of administration is 3 years and by allowing one month's grace period for holding the elections, the term of the office bearers of the old committee of management was to expire on 4.3.1998. The election schedule for constituting a new committee of management was notified on 27.2.1998 in 'DAIVAL' local newspaper and the list of 215 members of the general body was also published. The election was to take place on 5.3.1998. Amazingly enough, during the election process which was notified by Satya Deo Rai, erstwhile Manager, the D.I.O.S. attested the signatures of Shambhu Nath, petitioner No. 2 on 4.3.1998, meanting thereby the new committee of management, of which he claims himself to be the manager, came to be recognised. Certain complaints were made to the R.J.D.E. who is the immediate superior officer to the D.I.O.S. He called for the report of the D.I.O.S. In the matter but it was not received and consequently, respondent No. 1 R.J.D.E. by invoking his supervisory administrative powers, stayed the operation of the attestation of the signatures of Shambhu Nath. made by D.I.O.S. on 4.3.1998. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 7.4.98 of the R.J.D.E., the present petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 14338 of 1998, which was decided by this Court on 27.4.1998. It was directed that the R.J.D.E. shall pass appropriate speaking orders after hearing both the contesting parties. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 Shambhu Nath made a representation on 12.5.1998 before the R.J.D.E.-respondent No. 1 who in his turn, considered the respective contentions of the opposing parties and in compliance with the order dated 27.4.1998, passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 14338 of 1998. has passed the impugned order, dated 28.5.98. Annexure-10, coming to the conclusion that the alleged elections set up by Shambhu Nath petitioner No. 2 were illegal and that the election to constitute a new committee of management held on 5.3.1998 of which Satya Deo Rai-respondent No. 3 is the Manager was valid one and Satya Deo Rai is in effective control of the affairs of the institution : his signatures are liable to be attested and consequently the D.I.O.S.. In compliance of the impugned order passed by the R.J.D.E., attested the signatures of Satya Deo Rai. respondent No. 3.