Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
C/M,Sharda Nand Anchal Uchchtar … vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 August, 2010
Court No. - 39

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46565 of 2010

Petitioner :- C/M,Sharda Nand Anchal Uchchtar Madhyamic
V.And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- J.P.N.Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.S.Yadav

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

Committee of Management of Sharda Nand Anchal Uchchattr
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Saptarshi Dham, Ballia and Dev Mati
claiming herself to be the Manager have filed this petition for
setting aside the order dated 29th June, 2010 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools by which he has attested the signatures of
respondent No4-Ram Pratap Yadav as the Manager of the
Committee of Management of the Institution for the remaining
tenure on the resignation of the elected Manager Heera Lal Yadav.

It is stated in the petition that in the elections of the Committee of
Management held on 10th November, 2004, Heera Lal Yadav was
elected as the Manager but he submitted his resignation on 24th
June, 2008 and in the meeting of the General Body held on 13th
July, 2008, the resignation was accepted and petitioner No.2-Dev
Mati was elected as the Manager for the remaining tenure.
Regarding the Committee of Management of the Society, the
matter was placed before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assistant
Registrar’) who earlier approved the election of respondent No.4-
Ram Pratap Yadav as the Manager for the remaining tenure but
when a representation was filed by petitioner No.2-Dev Mati
regarding her election on the post of Manager, the Assistant
Registrar passed an order on 22nd December, 2009 staying the
earlier order. The District Inspector of Schools, however, on 29th
June, 2010 has proceeded to attest the signatures of respondent
No.4-Ram Pratap Yadav as the Manager after the period of six
months just one day prior to his retirement on 30th June, 2010 and
that too without considering the case of petitioner No.2-Dev Mati
that she had been elected for the remaining tenure on 13th July,
2008. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the order passed by the District Inspector of
Schools should be set aside.

Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3,
while Sri R.S. Yadav appears for respondent No.4. They state that
it is not necessary to file a counter affidavit and the petition may
be disposed at this stage. It is, however, the contention of learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.4 that the election set up by
petitioner No.2 as Manager is frivolous as it was respondent No.4-
Ram Pratap Yadav who had been elected as the Manager for the
remaining tenure of the Committee of Management of the
Institution. It is also his submission that petitioner No.2-Dev Mati
is wife of the Principal of the Institution who has been set up by
the Principal of the Institution.

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties.

Once the election set up by petitioner No.2-Dev Mati had been
placed by the petitioner before the District Inspectors of Schools
and the order dated 22nd December, 2009 passed by the Assistant
Registrar had also been placed before him, it was obligatory on the
part of the District Inspector of Schools to have heard the
petitioner before passing any order but that was not done. It also
needs to be noticed that the matter remained pending before the
District Inspector of Schools for six months but just one day before
the retirement, he passed the order.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, it is not possible to sustain the
order dated 29th June, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of
Schools, Mirzapur. It is, accordingly, set aside. The District
Inspector of Schools shall pass a fresh order in accordance with
law after hearing the parties concerned expeditiously, preferably
within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this
order is filed by either of the parties before the District Inspector
of Schools.

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits
of the case which shall be examined by the District Inspector of
Schools.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Order Date :- 6.8.2010
SK


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.146 seconds.