Back
2012 Supreme(All) 2828
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B.Amit Sthalekar, J.
Committee of Management Harjinder Nagar Inter College and Another -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.and Others -Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33822 of 2012
Decided On : 19-10-2012
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Irshad Ali , Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh, for the petitioners
C.S.C., Sri P.N. Saxena, Sri Alok Dwivedi , Sri Pankaj Rai, for the respondents.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration and upheld the decision based on the overwhelming evidence of the petitioner losing the confidence of the majority.
Headnote:
Financial Irregularities - College Management - Act Section 164 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of the Scheme of Administration, particularly para 5, 7, and 9, and their interpretation in the context of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The court found that the ex-officio members were prohibited from participating in the selection of office bearers and, by logical interpretation, from participating in any meeting for the removal of office bearers. The court also noted that the motion of no confidence was passed by a 2/3rd majority of the eligible members present, as required by the Scheme of Administration. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision of the D.I.O.S. based on the overwhelming evidence of the petitioner losing the confidence of the majority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a no confidence motion and the election of a new manager of a college due to financial irregularities. The petitioner alleged procedural irregularities in the resolution and objected to the decision of the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the motion of no confidence was validly passed by a 2/3rd majority of eligible members present, as required by the Scheme of Administration. The court upheld the decision of the D.I.O.S. based on the overwhelming evidence of the petitioner losing the confidence of the majority.
Issues: Procedural irregularities in the resolution, objections to the decision of the D.I.O.S.
Ratio Decidendi: The ex-officio members were prohibited from participating in the selection of office bearers and, by logical interpretation, from participating in any meeting for the removal of office bearers. The motion of no confidence was passed by a 2/3rd majority of eligible members present, as required by the Scheme of Administration.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision of the D.I.O.S. based on the overwhelming evidence of the petitioner losing the confidence of the majority.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.7.2012, passed by the D.I.O.S. whereby the no confidence motion passed in the resolution on 30.5.2012 against the petitioners has been accepted, and also the election of Sri Man Mohan Singh respondent no.4 as the new Manager of the Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.
The facts briefly stated are that there is the college known as Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District-Kanpur (the College). The college is managed by a Committee of Management under the Scheme of Administration and the petitioner no.2 is the manager of the said Committee of Management.
Certain allegations of financial irregularities were made against the petitioner no.2 and a notice was given by the President of the Committee, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai respondent no. 5, requesting the petitioner no.2 to call a meeting of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. The meeting of the Committee of Management was stated to have been held on 30.05.2012, and therein a resolution of no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner no.2. In the same resolution, the respondent no. 4 Sri Man Mohan Singh was also elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of the college. In this meeting which is held on 30.5.2012, nine members were present. Thereafter, out of these nine members, eight members also appeared before the Principal of the Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar, who had been appointed as the Observer. These eight members are stated to have submitted their affidavits to the Principal affirming that they had participated in the resolution held on 30.5.2012, and voted for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. The Principal of Government Inter College, is also stated to have submitted his report on 5.7.2012, confirming that eight members had appeared before him and had submitted their affidavits dated 13.6.2012, affirming that they had voted for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. A video recording was prepared of the proceedings and C.D. was also made.
I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Bhavesh Pratap Singh for the petitioners, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi for the respondent no.4, Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
Sri Ashok Khare raised the following objections:-
1.That as per para 5 of the Scheme of Administration, the Committee has 15 members but in the resolution passed on 30.5.2012, only nine members are stated to have participated.
2.That as per para 5 of the Scheme of Administration the vote of no confidence has to be passed by a 2/3rd majority of the members present in a particular meeting in which a motion of no confidence against a particular office bearer is passed after giving notice. According to him a 2/3rd majority out of 15 members would require 10 members but the admitted position on record is that only 9 members participated in the resolution on 30.5.2012, wherein the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioners.
3.That as per para 9 (ii), which deals with an Emergent Meeting, Emergent Meeting of the Committee can be called by the Manager with the approval of the President when necessary and shall require the written requisition of at least four members containing the resolution or the specific subject for consideration. The submission was that no letter was communicated to the petitioner no.2 for calling any Emergent Meeting for purposes of consideration and passing a motion of no confidence.
4.That the District Inspector of Schools did not consider the objections of the petitioner dated 25.6.2012.
5.That the petitioner no.2 had requested the District Inspector of Schools to provide certain documents relating to no confidence motion but the same were not provided to him.
Taking the first sub
