Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of Chaudhary Charan Singh Inter College, Bhatauna, District Bulandshahar and Fanish Kumar Tivatiya claiming himself to be the Manager have filed this petition for quashing the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 13th October, 2011 as conveyed by the communication dated 17th October, 2011 for granting approval to the election of Bijendra Singh as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution for the remaining term.

2. It is stated that election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 16th December, 2009 in which petitioner No. 2-Fanish Kumar Tivatiya was elected as the Manager and Ajay Kumar was elected as the President. This election was approved by the District Inspector of Schools and the signatures of Fanish Kumar Tivatiya were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools. Subsequently eight members moved a motion of no confidence against the Manager which was passed in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 10th April, 2011 and respondent No. 6-Bijendra Singh was elected as the Manager for the remaining term and this motion was also ratified by the General Body on 24th April, 2011.

3. Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the Samiti, which has been defined as the Committee of Management of the Institution, consists of 15 members and Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution requires that a motion of no confidence against a member or office bearer of the Samiti can be passed by majority of 2/3rds members of the Samiti if there are serious charges, the alleged motion of no confidence is of no consequence as it was passed by only 8 members and petitioner No. 2 continues to be the Manager of the Samiti. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that Clause 12 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution which deals with the constitution of the Samiti provides that the Samiti shall consist of not only 12 members elected by the General Body under Clause 5 of the Scheme of Administration but also of the 3 ex-officio members who are the Principal and 2 teachers with voting rights to all members of the Samiti. It is for this reason that learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at least 10 members should vote in favour of the no confidence motion as 2/3rd of 15 is 10 but only 8 members participated in the meeting.

4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bijendra Singh assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, however, submitted that under Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration only the 12 elected members of the Samiti can cast their vote and so the motion of no confidence that was passed on 10th April, 2011 by 8 members is valid. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that when the office bearers of the Samiti are elected by the 12 members elected to the Samiti by the General Body under Clause 5 and the 3 ex-officio members have no role to play in the election of the office bearers, these 3 ex-officio members should have no role to play in the motion of no confidence against the office bearers. Learned Senior Counsel also placed before the Court the provisions of Clause 16(1) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to support this contention.

5. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the 3 ex-officio members of the Samiti have a right to vote in the motion of no confidence brought against an office bearer of the Samiti under Clause 16(2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution.

7. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the parties on Clauses 16(1) and (2) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution