IMPORTANT POINT
Elections held by a Committee of Management whose term has expired are valid if no Authorized Controller is appointed, and the Regional Level Committee's rejection of such elections is contrary to law.

JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. Shri Saumitra Anand, Advocate, representing the petitioners, Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate, representing respondent No. 5 were heard on 13.3.2024 when the judgement in the case was reserved.

2. Shri Shanker Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Palso, District-Mathura (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Society’) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1860’) and runs Shri Shanker Inter College, Palso, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Institution’), which is a recognized Institution as defined under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1921’) and is governed by the Act and Regulations made thereunder. The Institution is also within the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and is also governed by The Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1971’).

3. A joint reading of the bye-laws of the Society and the Scheme of Administration of the Institution shows that the Committee of Management of the Institution is elected by the members of the general body of the Society from amongst themselves. The office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution are elected by the elected members of the Committee of Management from amongst themselves. The term of the Committee of Management is five years and Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration provides that the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution and its office bearers are to be held one month before the term of the existing Committee of Management expires. The Scheme of Administration further provides that in case the elections of the Committee of Management and its office bearers are not held within the time prescribed, the Regional Joint Director of Education may, on the recommendations of the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as, ‘D.I.O.S.’), appoint an Authorized Controller in the Institution and the Authorized Controller shall, as soon as possible, hold the elections of the Committee of Management. Clause 22 of the Scheme of Administration, under the heading Emergency Provisions, empowers the State Government to appoint, on the recommendations of either the Society or the Director of Secondary Education, an Administrator in the Institution and on the appointment of such Administrator, the Committee of Management of the Institution shall stand suspended. Clause 22 further provides that the Administrator can dissolve the Committee of Management of the Institution and remove its office bearers. Clause 22 (7) and (8) provide that the State Government can any time remove the Administrator appointed by it or appoint another Administrator and in case the Administrator is removed or his term expires and no successor to such Administrator is appointed, the Committee of Management shall stand restored.

4. The dispute in the present petition relates to the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution and the genesis of the dispute is in the rival elections set up in 2003.

5. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that the dispute between the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 5 is also regarding the valid list of members of the general body of the Society. The petitioner No. 2 claims that the list of 67 members of the general body submitted by him before the relevant authority is the valid list while the respondent No. 5 claims that the list submitted by him containing 126 members is the valid list of members of the general body. The different lists submitted by the parties do not contain the name of the other party, i.e., the list submitted by respondent No. 5 does not contain the name of petitioner No. 2 and the list submitted by petitioner No. 2 does not contain the name of respondent No. 5. In other words, the petitio