C/M Of Shyam Singh Inter College ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 4058 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

	                                                                                      
 
                                                                                                   AFR
 
					                                        Reserved 
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30390 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- C/M Of Shyam Singh Inter College And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. and 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh, Shyam Sunder
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Swetashwa Agarwal, Yogendra Singh Bohra
 

 
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers;

"i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the Regional Level Committee (Annexure-20 to the writ petition).

ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever."

2. The order impugned dated 10.06.2016 has been passed by the Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education 1st Region, Meerut under Section 16(A) 7 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

3. The brief facts of the case are that an institution namely Shyam Singh Inter College, Bilsuri, Bulandhshar was established. The claim of the petitioner is that it receives grant-in-aid from the State Government. It is claimed that under the scheme the period of administration of the management of Committee is five years which, in fact, was previously three years. It is claimed that the previous election of the Committee of Management was held on 27.09.2009 in which one Sri Satyaveer Singh was elected as President and Sri Subhash Singh was elected as Manager.

4. The election was held on 27.09.2009 which was approved by the District Inspector of School vide the order dated 01.10.2009. The tenure of the said Committee of Management expired in the year 2014, however, the Committee was further authorised to continue for another period of one month after expiry of 5 years period. Admittedly, the period of Committee of Management ended and it continued only till 26.10.2014.

5. On a complaint registered before the DIOS by respondent no.6, Manoj Kumar, the respondent no.6 has brought to the notice to the DIOS that the tenure of Committee of Management was ended/expired and outgoing office bearers are intending to hold election of Committee of Management secretly. The respondent no.6 has, therefore, requested the DIOS to get an inquiry conducted.

6. Similar complaint was also made by respondent no.5, the Manager, Neeraj Kumar, brother of respondent no.6.

7. The District Inspector of School after taking cognizance of the aforesaid objection/complaints has appointed one Subhash Babu Gautam, Assistant District Inspector of Schools as Inquiry Officer. Sri Subhash Babu Gautam inquired the matter and has found that outgoing Manager Subhash Singh had already conveyed a general body meeting.

8. The inquiry officer has submitted his report before DIOS and upon considering the entire material and the report submitted by the inquiry officer, the DIOS has passed an order to hold the election.

9. From perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.6, this Court has noticed that the election programme was notified in a newspaper namely 'Rashtriya Sahara' on 7th August, 2014, notifying the scheduled of election, which was to be held on 31.08.2014.

10. Admittedly, the meeting of general body was held on 31.08.2014 as the respondent no.5 Neeraj Kumar was permitted to convene the same. The meeting of the general body was held and thereafter the fresh election was held on 21.09.2014 in which Neeraj Kumar was elected as Manager. The DIOS has recognised/approved the Committee of Management.

11. The petitioner has made a reference to the Joint Director of Education and on receiving the reference the Joint Director of Education called upon the parties to appear before him for hearing. In this regard, it is relevant to point out here that three notices were issued by the Joint Director of Education to the petitioner no.2 i.e. notice dated 20.10.2015, dated 04.01.2016 and dated 23.04.2016. The dates were fixed for hearing.

12. Admittedly on the first two dates fixed, the petitioner did not appear and has claimed that she was not feeling well. On the last date fixed i.e. 18.05.2016, a day before the date fixed, the representative of the petitioner No.2 appeared on behalf of the petitioner No.2 and has submitted the objection.

13. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that on none of the dates the matter was heard by the Regional Level Committee, as such it is only the Joint Director of Education, who has heard the parties concern.

14. The order of the Committee dated 10.06.2016 is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the order impugned is an order passed solely by the Joint Director of Education and not by the Regional Level Committee, hence is illegal and bad.

15. I have heard Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Praval Tripathi holding the brief of Sri Swetashwar Agarwal, learned counsel represents the respondents nos.5 and Sri Sandeep Singh, learned Brief holder representing the respondent nos.1 to 4.

16. The order passed by the Regional Level Committee is well discussed order in which the committee has dealt with the entire case/claim of the petitioner no.2 in detail. The conclusion of the order of Regional Level Committee is quoted hereinbelow;

Þ[k.M ¼[k½

Jherh mfeZyk nsoh ds lEcU/k esa

e.My dk;kZy; ds uksfVl fnukad 20&10&2015 ds }kjk lquokbZ dh frfFk fnuakd 19&11&2015 fu/kkZfjr dh x;h fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks Jherh mfeZyk nsoh mifLFkr ugha gqbZ rFkk vius i= fnukad 19&11&2015 ds }kjk voxr djk;k gS fd cq[kkj ls ihfM+r gS] ftl dkj.k lquokbZ esa mifLFkr ugha gks ldrh rFkk lquokbZ gsrq vU; frfFk fn;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k] ftls Lohdkj djrs e.My dk;kZy; ds uksfVl fnukad 04&01&2016 ds }kjk lquokbZ dh frfFk fnukad 18&01&2016 fu/kkZfjr dh x;hA mDr frfFk dks Hkh Jherh mfeZyk nsoh lquokbZ esa mifLFkr ugha gqbZA muds }kjk e.My dk;kZy; esa izkIr djk;s x;s i= fnukad 18&01&2016 ds }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd muds firkth dk LokLFk [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k lquokbZ esa mifLFkr gksus esa vleFkZ gS rFkk viuk i{k j[kus ds fy;s vU; frfFk fn;s tkus tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k] ftldks Lohdkj djrs gq, e.My dk;kZy; ds uksfVl fnukad 23&04&2016 dsz }kjk fnukad 18&05&2016 dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h fdUrq mDr frfFk dks Hkh Jherh mfeZyk nsoh lquokbZ esa mifLFkr ugha gqbZA e.My dk;kZy; esa muds }kjk izkIr djk;k x;k i= fnukad 17&05&2016 ds }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd vR;Ur xehZ ds dkj.k gSts dh chekjh ls ihfM+r gS] ftl dkj.k lquokbZ esa mifLFkr ugha gks ldrhA Jherh mfeZZyk nsoh }kjk chekjh ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ viuk fpfdRlk izek.k&i= vius izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk miyC/k ugha djk;k rFkk lquokbZ gsrq vU; frfFk fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus ,oa uhjt dqekj }kjk fn;s x;s izR;kosnu dh ekax dh x;h] ftlds dze esa e.My dk;kZy; ds i= fnukad 19&05&2016 ds }kjk v/;{k] Jh lrchj flag ,oa izcU/kd] Jherh mfeZyk nsoh dks Jh uhjt dqekj ds izR;kosnu dh Nk;k izfr layXudj fnukad 27&05&2016 rd viuk i{k Lo;a vFkok izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls miyC/k djkus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;sA fnukad 27&05&2016 dks Jherh mfeZyk nsoh ds izfrfuf/k ds :i esa MkW0 /khjt flag mifLFkr gq,Aß

17. The Regional Level Committee has further discussed the issue and the claim of the respective parties and has arrived at a conclusion that the election held on 21.09.2014 was held in accordance with law in which the respondent no.5 Neeraj Kumar was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management and further that the election held on 21.09.2014 was approved by the DIOS after due consideration which needs no further interference.

18. It is not in dispute between the parties that period of five year is shortly going to expire i.e. in the month of July, 2019 and thereafter the process of fresh election for Committee of Management will take place.

19. In the aforesaid background, in my opinion, no fruitful purpose will serve to keep the matter pending before this Court as immediately after publication of the election date, the process and the proceedings will start and therefore, the issue involved in the instant writ petition will become useless/infructuous.

20. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

21. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court will not effect the process of future election, which will be held in due course in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 03.05.2019

A.Kr.*