HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D.K.Seth
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SWASNI PARAM HANS UNCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA DEORIA
Versus
DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION GORAKHPUR
Decided On : 03 January 1996
Civil Misc. W. P. No. 8611 of 1995
ELECTION - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION - BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER - U. P. BASIC EDUCATION ACT - SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION - INTERIM ORDER - STAY OF RECOGNITION - FRAUD - ESTOPPEL - INCIDENTAL QUESTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the elected manager of a junior high school, challenged the order of the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) cancelling the election of the managing committee and his appointment as manager. The DBEo had passed the impugned order after an inquiry into allegations of fraud and irregularities in the election process.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the DBEo had no jurisdiction to decide the question of the validity of the election, as there was no provision in the U. P. Basic Education Act authorizing such a decision. However, the court found that the DBEo could incidentally consider the validity of the election while determining the question of effective control over the management of the school.
Issues: 1. Whether the DBEo had jurisdiction to decide the question of the validity of the election of the managing committee and the appointment of the petitioner as manager? 2. Whether the DBEo could incidentally consider the validity of the election while determining the question of effective control over the management of the school? 3. Whether the DBEo could pass an interim order staying the recognition of the managing committee and the authorization of the petitioner's signature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the DBEo did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of the validity of the election, as there was no provision in the U. P. Basic Education Act authorizing such a decision. The court relied on the decision in Committee of Management of Pyarelal Shastri Junior High School Jajau v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Agra, (supra) wherein it was held that there is no provision by virtue of which the DBEo has been authorized to determine the question as to the validity of an election for the purpose of running an institution. 2. The court held that the DBEo could incidentally consider the validity of the election while determining the question of effective control over the management of the school. The court relied on the decisions in Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1019, and Committee of Management, Shahid Mongol Pandey Inter College Nagwa District Ballia v. State of U. P. , 1994 (2) UPLBEC 1348, which held that while adjudicating on the question of effective control, the question of validity of the election of the Committee of Management may be looked into. 3. The court held that the DBEo could pass an interim order staying the recognition of the managing committee and the authorization of the petitioner's signature, as the recognition was obtained illegally by a person who was a rank outsider and had come with unclean hands.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the DBEo cancelling the election of the managing committee and his appointment as manager.
In this case, the order, dated 4th of November, 1995 is impugned by the said order the election of the Managing Committee of the petitioner and the appointment of petitioner No. 2 as Manager of the School were cancelled after the order recognising the Committee of Manage ment and authorising the signature of the Manager was stayed by order, dated 22nd March, 1995 which was challenged in writ petition No. 8611 of 1995. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 31st March, 1995 to the extent that the payment of salary of the teachers and the staff shall be made by the District Basic Education Officer by single operation and all financial matters shall be handled either by the said officer or by some other officer authorised by him. The petitioner shall be continuing in respect of other administrative functions. It was provided in the said order that in the meantime, the District Basic Education Officer shall be free to conclude the enquiry in the matter after giving due notice to the parties. After the said order was passed, after giving notice to the parties, the District Basic Education Officer had passed the impugned order, dated 4th May, 1995 which is under challenge in writ petition No. 33360 of 1995.
2. Mr. Sahi appearing in support of both the petitions contends that so far as writ petition No. 33360 of 1995 is concerned, the order, dated 4th November, 1995 cannot be sustained on the ground that he has purported to decide the question of validity of the election and the membership of the society which is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the District Basic Educa tion Officer, though he fairly conceded that the U. P. Basic Education Act does not contain any provision under which the District Basic Education Officer is authorised to decide the said question, but, however, the said question was gone into and decided in the case of Committee of Manage ment of Sri Pyare Lal Shastri Junior High School Jajau, v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Agra, 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1601. According to him, since there is no provision authorising the said Officer to determine the question of validity of the election, therefore, the said finding in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Relying on the said judgment, he contends that for the purpose of ascertaining as to whom the said officer has to authorise for the purpose of carrying on the day to day administration of the school, he may summa rily decide the same. According to him, the remedy of the respondents is by way of a civil suit and the District Basic Education Officer cannot embark upon deciding those questions which fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. While passing the said order, the officer had travelled beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the authority vested in him. He further contends that the said officer cannot decide the question of no confidence nor he can decide the question of membership. According to him, the said officer has no authority to pass any interim order or stay the order passed by him recog nising the Committee of Management. Mr. Sahi contends further that the last election of the Committee of Management had taken place on 15th June, 1991. According to the Scheme of the Management of the said Insti tution, the life of the Managing Committee was five years. Subsequently Scheme of Management was modified according to the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which has since been approved wherein the life of the Committee of Management has been prescribed for the duration of the period of three years. The said new scheme of the Management has been approved by the appropriate authority, namely, the Deputy Director of Education. But however, the said school has not yet been recognised as High School or Intermediate School. According to him, as soon the new Scheme of the Management has been approved, the Com mittee of Management is to be governed by the said scheme. He further contends alternatively that the term o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.