JUDGMENT
B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 20.03.2007 delivered in Writ Petition No. 38485 of 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the order dated 09.02.2005 rendered by the Joint Director of Education recognising the Committee of Management of which the appellant Rajpati was elected as the Manager.
2. The dispute is in respect of the Committee of Management of Dr. Lohia Inter College which is m institution duly recognised and aided under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) and Regulations framed thereunder. Under the provisions of Section 16-A of the Act, every institution has to have a scheme of administration which is to conform to the norms prescribed under the statutory provisions coupled with the guidelines indicated in Schedule III of the Schedule appended to the said Act. The Institution presently in question is undisputedly governed by a duly approved scheme of administration framed under the aforesaid provisions and copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the stay application. The said scheme of administration as amended and applicable to the institution clearly prescribes the tenure of an elected Committee of Management as three years and one month with a further stipulation that upon the expiry of the aforesaid period, in the event a new Committee does not take over charge, the earlier Committee would become defunct and its tenure would come to an end. As a natural consequence thereof, the aforesaid provision also clearly provides that an Authorised Controller will be entitled to take over charge to be appointed by the Regional Joint Director of Education for managing the affairs of the institution and holding fresh elections.
3. In the instant case, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is that the undisputed elections were held on 24.11.1997. Subsequent thereto, no fresh elections were held within a period of three years and one month of the foresaid elections. The appellant and a rival claimant set up a claim of elections that were alleged to have been held on the basis of an election programme published on 26.09.2004. The elections are stated to nave been held on 01.10.2004 in which Keola Prasad and Rajbali, the rival claimant had been Selected and on the other hand the appellant Rajpati also staked his claim of having been elected on the same day as Manager with Shri Satya Narain as President. Thus, there was a rival claim of elections having been set up which dispute was intimated by the District Inspector of Schools to the Regional Director of Education. After rival contentions were placed before the Regional Level Committee headed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, the same was decided by the order impugned in the writ petition whereby the elections of the appellant were acknowledged. The appellant who was the respondent in the writ petition, made a clear statement in paragraph 28 of the counter affidavit which was filed in response to the writ petition admitting that the elections were held in the year 1997. It was also urged that the said Committee continued to function smoothly without interruption and, therefore, the said Committee cannot be said to have become functus officio after three years and one month and no such dispute was ever raised even in respect of the advertisement published by the said Committee for holding fresh elections. It was also alleged that in the absence of any such objections having been raised in respect of the holding of elections, it cannot be said that the erstwhile Committee had no authority to hold elections. In view of this, it is alleged that the order passed by the Regional Level Committee recognising the claim of the appellant did not deserve any interference.
4. From a perusal of the order which was impugned in the writ petition dated 09.02.2005, we find that the respondent Rajbali had taken a clear stand in paragraph 4 of his objections to the effect that the erstwhile Committee had become functus officio and, therefore, it had no right to hold any election. From a perusal of the order, we do not find any such issue having been adjudicated upon by the Regional Joint Director of Education or the Regional Level Committee and the same was clearly avoided to be answered. In our opinion, once the scheme of administration makes a provision specifying the tenure of Committee of Management without there being any provision for relaxation in favour of such Committee, then it is the Authorised Controller alone who can hold fresh elections. The outgoing Committee having continued without authority of law could not have proceeded to hold elections as it had no right in. law to do so.
5. Apart from this, in the Full Bench decision referred to by the learned Single Judge in Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Gorakhpur and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur and Ors. (2005) 1 UPLBEC 85, it has been clearly held that once the tenure of the Committee has expired, then it is the Authorised Controller who has to take over the charge and V proceed to hold elections.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and Anr. v. Alleged Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and Ors. (1998) 1 UPLBEC 379; and Ram Kripal Singh and Anr. v. Committee of Management, Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newarhiya, Jaunpur and Ors. (1993) 1 UPLBEC 344 to urge that once the Committee had completed its tenure, it had no right to hold elections and, therefore, the impugned order of the Regional Joint Director of Education was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge.
7. In the rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the appellant had relied on the decisions in the case of Committee of Management Sri Kashi Raj Mahavidyalaya Inter College v. Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur and Ors. 2005 (60) ALR 60 to urge that the appellant was in de facto control over the institution and, therefore, the Committee would not be rendered defunct even though the tenure of Committee of Management had expired. He has urged that the Committee continued to discharge its function and therefore had every right to hold elections.
8. Having perused the judgments, we find that the Full Bench decision in the case of Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College (supra), this Court while answering the questions referred to therein has held in paragraph 37 of the said decision that even where there is no provision for appointment of an Administrator, the concerned authority may proceed to appoint an Authorised Controller once it is found that the elections are invalid and direct the Authorised Controller to hold elections.
9. In the instant case, the Regional Level Committee committed a manifest error by not answering the said issue which had been clearly raised by the respondents. However, as already noted above, in view of the admitted position of the relevant clause contained in the scheme of administration, the Committee of Management which had been elected in 1997 had no authority to hold fresh elections. This view also finds support from the decisions relied by the respondents’ counsel. It has further been held by this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Shri Krishna Inter College, Niwari District Ghaziabad and Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad and Ors. (1991) 1 UPLBEC 646 (para 14) that the meeting convened to hold the elections after the expiry of the term is also invalid and such a meeting cannot be convened by the outgoing Committee of Management. The aforesaid ratio is quoted below:
A Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, 1986 AU 88, has laid down that after the term of the committee of management had expired its office bearers cannot legally convene and hold a meeting for electing new committee of management. According to the case set-up by the respondents themselves the terms of the committee of management, as mentioned before, came to an end in January, 1990 and after January, 1990 Sri Dharm Prakash Tyagi or any other person was not legally entitled to convene a meeting for holding the election. Election held on ls.07.1990 has absolutely void ab initio and District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to approve such a committee of management. That apart, the District Inspector of Schools should not have passed impugned order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners who claims to be rival committee of management and were also having stay order granted by this Court on 30.07.1990, the impugned order is absolutely without jurisdiction and liable to be set-aside.
10. The argument of the learn id counsel for the appellant that the Committee does not become defunct, cannot be accepted as the scheme of administration clearly provides for this and the elections held in violation of the said provision cannot be treated to be a valid election. The Regional Level Committee and the Joint Director of Education have, therefore, erred in recognising the elections of the year 2004, which were held contrary to the provisions of the scheme of administration. The decision in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Kashi Raj Mahavidyalaya Inter College (supra) proceeded on the presumption that there was no rival claim at all and in paragraph 26 of the said judgment, the said distinction has been acknowledged. The said decision will, therefore, not apply on the facts of this case as in the present case there was a rival dispute of two elections both of which could not nave been acknowledged or recognised as they had been held beyond the period of three years and one month which were contrary to the scheme of administration. In view of the distinction drawn by the Division Bench in the aforesaid a se itself, as pointed out herein above, the ratio of the said decision would not be available to the appellant to support his case.
11. For the forgoing reasons and the reasons already indicated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion refused by the learned Single Judge and we accordingly affirm his judgment.
12. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order to costs.