COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF L P C ARYA KANYA INTER COLLEGE MATHURA AND Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SECONDARY AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders dated 26.5.1997. Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (for short 'D.D.E.') (Madhyamik). Agra and the consequential order dated 31.5.1997/4.6.1997. Annexure-8 to the writ petition whereby Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri respondent No. 3 assumed office of Manager in place of the Authorised Controller and it is prayed that the orders aforesaid be quashed and the respondent No. 3 Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri and respondent No. 4 Virendra Chaudhary, who respectively claim themselves to be the Manager and President of the Committee of Management, be restrained from acting and functioning as such . The necessary facts in the wake of which the present writ petition has come up may be stated as follows.

(2.) There is a Girls' School, which was originally known as Arya Samaj Girls' School, Mathura. which came to be subsequently named as Lakshman Prasad Chaturvedi Arya Kanya Inter College. This institution has been established by the Arya Samaj. Tilak Dwar Mathura, an unit of the apex body-U. P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The institution is duly recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P.. Allahabad. In the year 1980. the D.D.E. had approved a scheme of administration which governs the management and conduct of the affairs of the institution through a Committee of Management elected under its provisions. A copy of the duly approved scheme of administration is Annexure-R.A. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. As per clause 7 of the scheme of administration, the term of the Committee of Management is three year with the rider that the term of each one of the office-bearers shall continue till their successors are elected.

(3.) The last elections to constitute a Committee of Management were admittedly held on 22nd July, 1988 in which Gopal Das Saudagar and Jai Kumar Mangal were elected respectively as President and Manager of the Committee. The dispute arose when Dharmendra Saxena claimed himself to be the President of the Committee having been elected in the meeting of the general body on 28.1.1990. It is alleged that since Sri Saxena acted against the interest of the institution and had set up an election in his favour, he was removed from the membership of the general body by the Arya Samaj in its meeting dated 25.9.1991 and the apex body also held the election of Sri Saxena as illegal and informed the Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools (for short 'R.I.G.S.'). Agra. However, on 4.2.1992, the R.I.G.S. directed for the attestation of signatures of Krishna Gopal Gupta as Manager with the restriction that he shall get the new scheme of administration approved by the competent authority and the election shall be held in accordance with the procedure envisaged in the new scheme. The District Inspector of Schools (for short 'D.I.O.S.') attested the signatures of Sri Krishna Gopal Gupta on 5.2.1992. The above order passed by the R.I.G.S. remained uncomplied with. A Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9908 of 1992 was filed in which an interim order was passed on 23.3.1992 whereby the implementation of the orders dated 4.2.1992 and 5.2.1992 was stayed and it was further directed that in case the Authorised Controller is already managing the affairs of the institution, he shall continue to manage the same and if no Authorised Controller is appointed, necessary steps for appointment of Authorised Controller, at an early date, shall be taken. Accordingly on 1.5.1992. the Regional D.D.E., Agra appointed an Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the institution. According to the petitioners, elections to constitute a new Committee of Management could not take place on account of the dispute about the members of the general body. i.e.. voters' list between the rival groups. With a view to resolve the dispute, the apex body--U. P. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha appointed one Badam Singh as Returning Officer to finalise the list of voters. It is alleged that he called a meeting of the warring groups on 25.8.1996 and, therefore, at least by that date, no election to constitute a Management Committee had taken place. On 29.8.1995. the Writ Petition No. 9908 of 1992 came to be dismissed and the interim order dated 23.3.1992 was discharged. On behalf of the petitioners, it is urged that the respondent No. 3 Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri manipulated certain fake elections alleged to have taken place on 1.5.1996. He approached the D.D.E. on 5.5.1997. i.e.. after one year of the election, to recognise the elections and to hand over the charge of the institution after discharging the Authorised Controller appointed on 1.5.92. The D.D.E. passed the impugned order on 31.5.1997, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby he not only relieved the Authorised Controller of his duties but also recognised the Committee of Management of which Vaidya Shyam Behari Shastri claimed himself to be the Manager and that on 4.6.1997, the Authorised Controller had handed over the charge to the Committee of Management of which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 held out to be the Manager and President respectively. The stand taken by the petitioners is that the D.D.E. had no authority or jurisdiction to recognise the election or to deal with the validity of the alleged elections held on 1.5.1996 and. therefore, the impugned order is illegal. It is also alleged that since scheme of administration has not been amended to bring in line with the provisions of Section 16CC of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), elections could not be held and if at all elections were to be held, they were to be conducted under the supervision of the Authorised Controller. The assertion of the petitioners in that the alleged exercise which has been taken on 1.5.1996 was nothing but ghost elections. For this reason, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders.