CHANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging certain elections held in course of the Constitution of the Managing Committee of a School.

(2.) The petitioner's case, briefly stated, is as follows: He is a donor of the Siropatti Khatnaha High School, within the District of Samastipur. The Managing Committee of the School was being reconstituted and in course of that a notice was issued in respect of a meeting at which the guardian Members of the Managing Committee were to be selected. At this meeting, held on the 20th November, 1973, Respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were selected by the guardians assembled in the meeting. Surprisingly, however, the first respondent held another meeting on the 16th December, 1973, at which Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were selected as guardian's representatives. Again there was a notice issued on the 23rd January, 1974, in respect of a meeting for the co-option of 3 educationists to be the members of the Managing Committee. No notice, however, was given to Respondents Nos. 7 and 8. Yet, at this meeting, held on the 3rd February, 1974, Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 were elected as such Members. Respondents Nos. 7 and 8 came up to this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 336 of 1974, but, on the persuasions of the first respondent, withdrew that application on the 28th March, 1974. The intimation thereof was received by the first respondent on the 5th April, 1974, with the result that with an unseeming haste, he ordered the further elections for the purpose of constituting the Managing Committee to be notified and taken up. As a result thereof, on the 6th April, 1974, a notice was issued in respect of a meeting for the election of the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee. At this meeting Respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were not invited At this meeting, however, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were elected the Secretary and the President, respectively. On account of the absence of notice to Respondents Nos. 7 and 8, all the steps taken in respect of the Constitution of the Managing Committee were illegal and for that reason the election of Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 is illegal. The petitioner claims to be a donor and he says that no notice was issued to him or to the other donors and the entire election is, therefore, illegal. Further he says that in any case, the notices issued for the meeting to elect the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee were not issued clear ten days before the meeting.

(3.) On behalf of the first respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed, according to which the meeting for selection of guardians' representatives to be held on the 20th November, 1973, had been cancelled on the 19th November, 1973 notices not having been issued to the guardians on account of the illness of the Headmaster, who was supposed to have issued those notices. Accordingly this meeting was held on the 16th December, 1973, after due notice to all concerned. The allegation of the petitioner about a meeting being held and about Respondents Nos. 7 and 8 having been elected thereat is denied. With regard to the meeting for the co-option of the three educationists, it is said that Respondents Nos. 7 and 8 not having been elected guardians' representatives, undoubtedly no notice was sent to them and notices were sent only to persons entitled to vote thereat. Regarding this meeting notice was given to the petitioner on the 23rd January, 1974, and the meeting was to be held on the 3rd February, 1974. With regard to the election of the President and the Secretary again it is said that due notice was given, notice having been issued on the 6th April, 1974, for the meeting to be held on the 16th April, 1974. A certificate of posting is said to have been obtained in respect of the posting of the notice. Upon these facts, it is said that the election at all the three stages was perfectly legal. It has also been stated that the petitioner had the alternative remedy by way of appeal against the elections concerned, which lay before the President of the Board of Secondary Education, which he has not exhausted. The writ application is, therefore, said to be not maintainable in this Court.