Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 744
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.
Mrs. Veena Iohia
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others
G.A. No. 1880 of 2012 With 1881 of 2012 in W.P. No. 527 of 2012
Decided on : 10-08-2012
For the Petitioner:Tapabrata Chakraborty, Sakti Pada Jana, P.S. Deb Burman, Advocates. For the Respondents:R3, Kamalesh Bhattacharya, R6, Ekramul Bari, M. Ali, Subhabrata Datta, Sankar Prasad Dalapati, Advocates.
Election disputes relating to school managing committees should be resolved by the Board as per the Procedure for Holding Election.
Headnote:
ELECTION DISPUTE - SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE - WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING ELECTION, PARA 34 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition challenging the legality of a notice for convening a meeting to hold elections for office bearers of the Managing Committee of a school. The petitioner contended that the meeting could not be held due to lack of quorum and that the election of office bearers was illegal. The respondent contended that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that an election dispute should be resolved by the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute raised in the writ petition was an election dispute capable of resolution by the Board under the Procedure for Holding Election. The court found that an identical election dispute had already been submitted to the Board, and directed the petitioner to join herself as a complainant in that complaint or file an independent complaint within a specified time.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the writ petition. 2. Whether the dispute raised in the writ petition was an election dispute. 3. Whether the election of office bearers was illegal due to lack of quorum.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the writ petition as she had been invited to participate in the meeting as the nominee of the life member of the Managing Committee. 2. The court held that the dispute raised in the writ petition was an election dispute as it related to the legality of the election of office bearers. 3. The court held that it would not enter into the merits of the election dispute as an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner before the Board.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to join herself as a complainant in the complaint already submitted to the Board or file an independent complaint within a specified time. The Board was directed to consider and dispose of the complaint by passing a reasoned order within three months from the date of communication of the order. The court also held that the reconstitution of the Managing Committee may be completed with the elected office bearers, but such reconstitution would ultimately abide by the result of the election dispute.
The petitioner, claiming herself as the nominee of the life member of the Managing Committee of the Sri Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya, filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality of the notice dated 22nd June, 2012 issued by the Teacher-in-Charge of the said school for convening a meeting on 29th June, 2012 at 4 P.M. for holding election of office bearers of the Managing Committee of the said school. The said writ petition was initially moved on 29th June, 2012 when this Court passed an interim order by directing that the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 29th June, 2012 may be held, but the outcome of the said meeting will not be given effect to till 4th July, 2012. The said interim order was extended from time to time and the same is still continuing.
2. It was contended by the petitioner that out of six elected guardian members five members have lost their membership as their wards either left the school or completed their studies in the said school subsequent to their election as guardian members. It was further contended that one of the teachers representative namely, Om Prokash Singh has subsequently been appointed as Teacher-in-Charge and, thus, he ceased to become a member under the teachers’ category. Sometime thereafter, the said Om Prokash Singh was replaced by another teacher of the said school who is presently acting as Teacher-in-Charge of the said school and Om Prakash Singh has been reverted back to the post of Assistant Teacher of the said school.
3. In this context it was contended by the petitioner that even though the said Om Prokash Singh is no longer acting as a Teacher-in-Charge of the said school as he has been reverted back to the post of Assistant Teacher of the said school but still then he cannot be permitted to represent the teachers of the said school as their representative in the Managing Committee of the said school, as his representative capacity in the teachers’ category which was terminated on his appointment as teacher-in-charge, cannot revive on his reversion to the post of Assistant Teacher.
4. It was further contended by the petitioner that out of fifteen members only five or six members are there from different categories and as such reconstitution of the Managing Committee with those five or six members cannot be made. In this context the legality of the said notice dated 22nd June, 2012 was challenged. In short it was contended by the petitioner that no meeting, in fact, could have been held on 29th June, 2012 for want of quorum, as presence of at least eight members was necessary for formulation of quorum. Since during the pendency of this writ petition election of the office bearers was held on 29th June, 2012 as per the schedule, the petitioner in the affidavit in reply filed by her to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent no. 6 challenged the legality of the election of the officer bearers in the meeting held on 29th June, 2012 on the ground of lack of quorum. It was contended by the petitioner that only seven members including Om Prakash Singh were present in the said meeting and as such no meeting could have been held on the said date for want of quorum. It was further contended by the petitioner that the presence of Om Prokash Singh who ceased to become a member under the teachers’ category, cannot be counted. Thus, a question regarding legality of the election held on 29th June, 2012 was sought to be raised by the petitioner.
5. Though the locus of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition was challenged by the respondent no. 6 by contending inter alia that since the petitioner has not been nominated by the life member to represent him in the Managing Committee which is in the process of reconstitution, she cannot maintain the instant writ petition by describing herself as the nominee of the life member but this Court does not feel any necessity to enter into the said dispute as it is found that the Teacher-in-Charge of the said
