Back
2020 Supreme(All) 709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
C/M Thakur Biri Singh Inter College and another – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. and Others – Respondents
WRIT- C No. 28560 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Nitinjay Pandey
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Hemendra Kumar, Naresh Chandra Tripahti
Point of law: grounds furnish valid justification for an action under Section 5(1) of the Act. The attestation on which the petitioner is relying was the attestation done by the District Inspector of Schools while Smt. Durga Devi was acting as the Manager of the previous Committee of Management which was elected in 1984. On the basis of that attestation, the District Inspector of Schools could obviously not proceed to disburse the salary of the teacher and employees even after having come to know that fresh election for the Constitution of the Committee of Management had admittedly taken place
Headnote:
U.P. High Schools And Intermediate Colleges (Payment Of Salaries Of Teachers And Other Employees) Act, 1971 – Section 5(1) – U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 – Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Payment of Salary – Constitution of the Committee of Management and the same having been referred for determination of the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) and at present there being no recognised Manager, the District Inspector of Schools rightly considered the present to be a fit case for invoking powers under Section 5(1) of the Act.
Facts of the case: Writ petition is directed against an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, whereby petitioner's application, filed pursuant to orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition has been rejected and the previous order passed by the Inspector is maintained – Previous order of Inspector, holds that in view of the order passed by this Court in Special Appeal continuance of petitioner committee pursuant to elections held has become impermissible in law and, consequently the Inspector has invoked her authority under Section 5(1) of the U.P. High Schools And Intermediate Colleges (Payment Of Salaries Of Teachers And Other Employees) Act, 1971 to pass an order of single operation – This order is assailed primarily on the ground that the petitioner management stood recognized by the Inspector, which is not challenged by anyone, and as there is no difficulty in payment of salary to the teachers and employees of the institution, as such, the invocation of authority under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1971 to pass an order of single operation is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. –
Finding of the court: If the facts of the present case are analyzed in light of the law settled, it is apparent that petitioner no. 2, even prima facie, cannot claim to be the elected manager. – A serious cloud on the membership of petitioner no. 2 having arisen on account of adjudication made by the division bench in Special Appeal, the Inspector would clearly be entitled to exercise her powers under Section 5 to pass an order of single operation. – Mere fact that none has challenged the attestation of signature therefore would not be a valid ground to deny authority to the Inspector to invoke her powers under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1971. – Even in the absence of any challenge the Inspector retains the jurisdiction to exercise her authority under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1971 if a difficulty in law arises in payment of salary as is noticed above in the facts of the present case. –
Result: Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Firozabad, dated 26th June, 2019, whereby petitioner's application, filed pursuant to orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 16904 of 2019, has been rejected and the previous order passed by the Inspector on 29th March, 2019 is maintained. The previous order of Inspector, dated 29th March, 2019, holds that in view of the order passed by this Court on 23rd January, 2019, in Special Appeal No. 215 of 2018, the continuance of petitioner committee pursuant to elections held on 30th September, 2018 has become impermissible in law and, consequently the Inspector has invoked her authority under Section 5(1) of the U.P. High Schools And Intermediate Colleges (Payment Of Salaries Of Teachers And Other Employees) Act, 1971 to pass an order of single operation. This order is assailed primarily on the ground that the petitioner management stood recognized by the Inspector on 17.10.2018, which is not challenged by anyone, and as there is no difficulty in payment of salary to the teachers and employees of the institution, as such, the invocation of authority under Section 5(1) of the Act of 1971 to pass an order of single operation is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
2. Before adverting to the legal proposition urged on behalf of the petitioner, it would be necessary to refer to the basic facts of the present case in the context of which the aforesaid dispute has arisen. There exists a society known as 'Thakur Biri Singh Educational Society, Tundla Firozabad, registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'society'). The society is running an Intermediate College namely 'Thakur Biri Singh Inter College' at Firozabad which is recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution'). The teaching and non-teaching staff of this institution is receiving salary from the State funds by virtue of the provisions contained in the U.P. High Schools And Intermediate Colleges (Payment Of Salaries Of Teachers And Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971). The educational institution is being managed in accordance with its recognized scheme of administration. The bye-laws of the society, as also the scheme of administration of the institution are contained in Annexures 1 & 2 to the writ petition in respect of which no dispute exists. The scheme of administration contains a definition clause wherein the society is defined in clause 2(8), as under:-
^^¿8À lkslkbVh dk rkRi;Z Bk0 chMh flag f'k{kk lfefr Vw.Myk vkxjk uke jftLVMZ lkslk;Vh ls gSA^^
3. Clause 5 of the scheme of administration provides for constitution of a managing committee. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 clearly provides that election of office-bearer will be made from the members of the society. Clause 5 (2) of the scheme of administration is reproduced hereinafter:-
^^5&lfefr dk laxBu&
¼2½ lfefr ds lHkh lnL; insu lnL;ksa dks NksM+dj voSfrfud gksaxsaA budk pquko lkslk;Vh ds lnL;ksa esa ls gksxkA**
4. It appears that dispute arose in the past, from time to time, regarding valid election of the office-bearers of society and a bunch of writ petitions, in that regard, came to be disposed of by this Court on 2.2.2018. Claim of membership of petitioner no. 2 also fell for consideration before this Court. Following observations of this Court, made in that regard are relevant and are accordingly reproduced hereinafter:-
“In this backdrop, the Court has proceeded to have a glance of order dated 17.05.1990 and 25.07.2002 passed by the Deputy Registrar as well as order dated 19.05.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority by which it is clearly reflected that at the relevant point of time the society in question was time barred since as per the bye laws, the election ought to have been held within three years period as admittedly the last valid e
