Allahabad High Court
Rakhi Jaiswal And 4 Others vs C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College Thru. ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 304 of 2025
Rakhi Jaiswal And 4 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College Thru. Its Manager And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Vijay Dixit, Virendra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ashish Verma, Ajay Pratap Singh, C.S.C.
A.F.R.
Judgment reserved on:10.09.2025
Judgment delivered on:10.10.2025
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
(Per: Rajan Roy,J.)
1. Heard Shri Vijay Dixit along with Shri Virednra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.
2. By means of this appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the writ Court in Writ- C No. 7013 of 2025 filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2, by which the writ petition has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the District Inspector of Schools to attest the signatures of respondent no. 2 who claims to have been elected as Manager of the Committee of the College.
3. Before the learned Single Judge an order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.I.O.S.') was under challenge. By the said order, the D.I.O.S. considered attestation of signatures of respondent no. 2 as Manager of the Institution. In that context, he considered a report of the Authorized Controller dated 04.04.2025, which is on record, according to which, the provision contained in Clause 11 of the statutorily approved scheme of administration referable to Section 16-A of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which has statutory force, had not been followed, as, the Authorized Controller having been appointed on 07.06.2024, it was he, who had replaced the Managing Committee, therefore, any process of election could be initiated only through him, instead, keeping him in the dark, entire process had been initiated and conducted by the earlier Managing Committee of the College and its office bearers, which had not locus to conduct such election. Secondly, the D.I.O.S. relied upon a letter/report of the Principal of the College, according to whom, no election took place in the premises of the College on 06.04.2025 which was the date and venue mentioned in the notice issued by the office bearers of the aforesaid Managing Committee (not the Authorized Controller) for holding of elections.
4. Based on the aforesaid evidence, D.I.O.S. found that there was no election in the eyes of law nor was it in accordance with Clause 11 of the statutorily approved scheme of administration which was mandatory and, accordingly, he declined to attest the signatures of respondent no. 2 herein. While doing so, he has also ordered that Committee of Management of the College be constituted as per law and date be fixed for its election.
5. It is not out of place to mention that this order dated 16.06.2025 was passed after a judgment dated 29.05.2025 passed in earlier writ petition filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 challenging another order of the D.I.O.S. declining to attest the signatures, which was allowed on the ground that the affected persons had not been heard.
6. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the respondents no. 1 and 2, after noticing the submission of rival parties including a private respondent who is arrayed as respondent no. 6 herein, was of the opinion that based on the report of the Principal dated 07.04.2025 the D.I.O.S. has formed a view that the election was not held but this was arbitrary in as much as for holding of the election it was necessarily incumbent that views of the Members who had participated in the elections should have been elicited. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has opined that non sending of the observer can not be said to be fatal to the election in view of the Government Order dated 02.09.2008 which was on record. In addition to it, the learned Single Judge has opined that the D.I.O.S. in exercise of his powers of attestation of signatures, prima facie, has no powers to see the validity of the election as appeared to have been done. Accordingly, for these three reasons the writ petition has been allowed. The order dated 16.06.2025 has been quashed and a direction has been issued to the D.I.O.S. to attest the signatures as requested by the petitioners before him.
7. The appellants herein were not opposite parties in the writ petition, therefore, they have filed an application seeking leave to appeal, to which objections have been filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2.
8. The contention of appellants on leave to appeal was that they are members of the general body of the Society which elects the Committee of Management of the College and by virtue of the said membership they are also voters to any election to any office of the Committee of Management of the College and as no elections were held, certainly not as per the statutorily approved scheme of administration nor at the place where it was supposed to be held as per respondents themselves and as appellants could not participate in it, therefore, they have an interest and locus in the matter. In addition to it, most of the appellants were also office bearers of the earlier Committee of Management of the College till an Authorized Controller was appointed. Appellant no. 1 was its Manager, a fact admitted by Respondents no. 1 and 2 in Para 8 of the writ petition. Appellant No. 2 was its Vice- President and appellants no. 3 and 4 were its Members. For these reasons, all the appellants have an interest in proper functioning of the College, for which, a valid election as per the statutorily approved scheme of administration is a pre-requisite, therefore, the appellants have a right and interest in the matter to file this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned writ Court which is apparently erroneous.
9. Per contra Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 submitted that in order to make out their locus the appellants have filed forged and fabricated objections dated 06.04.2025, which, in fact, appears to be ante dated and includes the names of some persons who are not members of general body but are employees of the Institution. He submitted that everybody can not be permitted to file an appeal against the judgment of the writ Court, even assuming that there is any error in the same, though, not conceding to the same, as, otherwise, there would be no finality attached to such judgments. It was also his submission that the respondent no. 6, in fact, is the husband of the appellant no. 1 and he was a party in the writ petition but has not chosen to file any appeal.
10. Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 6 who was opposite party no. 4 in the writ petition.
11. As regards the leave to appeal, and in view of reasons which will follow hereinafter, we are of the opinion that all the appellants are members of general body of the Society and by virtue of their membership they are entitled to vote in any election to the Committee of Management of the College which has been established by the Society, therefore, they certainly have a right and interest in proper and smooth functioning of the Intermediate College, for which, a validly elected Committee of Management is necessary and considering the fact that it is the case of the appellants that there was a report of the Principal of the College that no election whatsoever took place within the premises of the College on 06.04.2025 which was the date and venue for the said election and, then, there was the report of the Authorized Controller who was managing the institution to the effect that no process of election had been initiated by him and that the one initiated and proposed by the Managing Committee was de-hors the statutorily approved scheme of administration, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the respondents no. 1 and 2 that the appellants herein do not have a right to challenge the judgment of the writ Court which has a bearing on the functioning of the College and its administration and management by a Committee of Management, for election to which, the appellants are also voters.
12. As regards the objections filed by the appellants contained in Annexure No. 20 being forged and fabricated the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 was that if this document existed, then, the husband of the appellant no. 1 who was the opposite party no. 4 in the writ petition would have filed it. It is difficult to record a finding of forgery and fabrication based on this reasoning. To say that the document was ante dated, there is no evidence in this regard. The document bears receipt by Principal and his seal. Merely because there is some overwriting would not make much of difference, as, these questions at best would be disputed questions of facts. We are of the opinion that the appellants for the reasons given hereinabove would have a right to challenge the judgment of the writ Court. After all, smooth functioning of an Intermediate College is of paramount importance and this can not be compromised, especially when the appellants can not be said to be complete strangers to the College, certainly not to the Society nor to the functioning of the College, some of them being earlier office bearers of the outgoing Committee of Management.
13. Considering the importance of the issue involved and the facts and reasons given hereinabove the appellants have a right to appeal against the judgment of the writ Court and this will also be evident from what will be discussed hereinafter, especially as, even after the observation by the writ court that the D.I.O.S. arbitrarily accepted the report of the Principal without eliciting the views of the members of general body as to whether any elections were held or not, instead of remanding the matter back to the D.I.O.S. or for that matter the Writ Court itself inquiring as to whether any such election was held, assuming that it could do so, learned Single Judge has straightaway allowed the writ petition and directed the D.I.O.S. to attest the signatures of the respondent no. 2, meaning thereby, without any finding on validity of the report of the Principal dated 07.04.2025 and without any finding on the issue as to whether any election was actually held or not at the venue fixed for the said purpose; whether it was held as per statutorily approved scheme of administration, the writ petition has been allowed, therefore, the appellants, for the reasons aforesaid, certainly have a right and interest to challenge the same.
14. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal bearing No. 1 of 2025 is allowed.
15. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the parties also addressed us on merits of the matter.
16. Now, when we consider the merits of the appeal, we have already discussed the reasons given by learned writ Court while allowing the writ petition.
17. We must point out that the Authorized Controller who was managing the Institution was not impleaded as an opposite party in the writ petition. In our view, he was a necessary party, as one of the questions to be considered was as to who was authorized to initiate and hold the elections under the statutorily approved scheme of administration of Institution and there was a report of the Authorized Controller himself that he was the person authorized to initiate and conduct the election not only as per the statutorily approved scheme of administration because he had stepped into the shoes of the Managing Committee of the College which was no longer functional, but, also because the order of his appointment itself stated that he was required to get the elections conducted.
18. Report of the Authorized Controller was one of the materials taken into consideration by the D.I.O.S. but nothing has been said by the learned Single Judge on this count as to whether the election was initiated and got conducted by the competent authority and without considering this issue the writ petition has been allowed in the manner already stated hereinabove.
19. Further, the D.I.O.S. at the time of considering attestation of signatures of a person who claims to have been validly elected as Manager of a College, though, he was not required to adjudicate disputes between two rival Committees claiming a right to manage the Institution nor to decide any complicated dispute pertaining to elections and its validity, but, he was certainly required to see as to whether the person who is staking claim, his signatures are liable to be attested or not, and, in this context, he was certainly required to see, firstly, as to whether any elections whatsoever were held or not. If he found for valid reasons and material before him that no election was held, then, he could not be compelled to attest the signatures of such a person. Secondly, in this process, at least, prima facie, he was entitled to see as to who has initiated or conducted the elections, whether he was competent to do so under the statutorily approved scheme of administration or not, as, if he apparently found that the elections, were initiated or got conducted by somebody who was not authorized to do so under law, then, it would not be a question of considering validity of an election, but, a situation there was no election as per law and he could not be compelled to attest the signatures of a person claiming rights as Manager based on such election. He is not supposed to be a post office while considering attestation of signature of any person as Manager of the College.
20. Of course, he can not conduct a roving inquiry into the validity of elections of a nature which may involve disputed and complicated questions of fact but he can certainly ascertain, firstly, as to whether any election process was initiated by the competent authority whether in terms of the statutorily approved scheme of administration or in the event of supersession of Managing Committee by the Authorized Controller; whether it was conducted by such competent authority. Secondly, whether prima facie any elections at all were held on the date time and venue fixed for the said purpose by the competent authority or not. This limited exercise is not beyond his jurisdiction while considering attestation of signatures and if he undertakes it, it can not be said that he has decided validity of the elections, as, in such a scenario there is no election in accordance with law nor in accordance with the statutorily approved scheme of administration. This fundamental illegality could not be ignored by the D.I.O.S. Learned Single Judge appears to have lost sight of this factual and legal position.
21. The learned Single Judge has thus erred in allowing the writ petition on the premise that the D.I.O.S. had decided the validity of the election. With respect, the D.I.O.S. has not decided the validity of the election stricto sensuo in the sense that he has not entered into any complicated dispute of rival parties claiming to be elected or pertaining to elections. What he has decided is that there was no election at all at the time and date fixed for the said purpose at the venue prescribed and also that the competent authority i.e. Authorized Controller did not initiate the process of election nor got it held. These were not issues which could not be seen by the D.I.O.S. In our opinion the D.I.O.S. was well within his rights to conduct a limited inquiry which he did as to whether the elections were held or not, as also, whether the election was initiated and held by competent persons or not. To this extent at least in the facts of this case he could not be faulted and he has not stated anything beyond that.
22. Ignoring these relevant aspects the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition without any counter affidavit having been filed by the D.I.O.S.
23. The writ petition was filed on 17.07.2025 and it has been decided on 14.08.2025. Neither the Authorized Controller was impleaded as an opposite party nor did he file any counter affidavit nor the D.I.O.S. filed any counter affidavit. It was not a matter which could have been decided at the initial stage in the manner in which it has been done.
24. Further, he has also lost sight of the fact that an Authorized Controller had been appointed under Section 6(3) of the (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1971') which clearly provides for supersession of the Management for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order and for authorization of any person referred to as Authorized Controller to take over the management of the institution for the said period. Sub-section 4 of Section 6 of the Act, 1971 further clarifies the position by saying that on an order being made under sub-section (3) the Authorised Controller shall, to the exclusion of the management and subject only to the directions, if any, of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the Director or the State Government, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the management, including management of the property belonging to or vested in the institution, and in particular, operate singly the bank account referred to in Section 5 subject of course to the proviso contained therein.
25. As such, the Authorized Controller steps into shoes of the Managing Committee and the latter ceases to manage the Institution and has no role whatsoever to perform any further in any context, especially regarding holding of elections and, wherever the statutorily approved scheme of administration requires any action by any office bearer of the Managing Committee, then, such action will have to be taken by the Authorized Controller and not by the erstwhile Managing Committee.
26. Section 6(3) and (4) of the Act, 1971 clearly indicates that the Authorized Controller steps into the shoes of the Management which ceases to function. Therefore, merely because the Authorized Controller was appointed under the Act, 1971 and not under Section 16-DD of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, does not make any difference.
27. We may in this context refer to the definition of Management as contained in Section 2(d) of the said Act, 1971, according to which, Management, in relation to any institution, means the committee of Management constituted in accordance with the Scheme of administration, if any, and includes the Manager or other person vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution.
28. It was not a case where single hand operation had been ordered under the Act, 1971 where, only for the purposes of signing the salary bills the Management is divested of its powers but continues to manage the institution otherwise, but, it was a case where an Authorized Controller had been appointed under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act, 1971 by superseding the Managing Committee, therefore, the Managing Committee ceased to manage the College.
29. It is undisputed that the Authorized Controller, who was not even arrayed as an opposite party in the writ petition, was managing the Institution. Even the Authorised Controller was not present at the time of alleged election.
30. Now, we may consider the Scheme of Administration. As per Section 16-A(1) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 notwithstanding anything in any law, document, or decree or order of a Court or other instrument, there shall be a Scheme of Administration for every institution, whether recognized before or after the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958. The Scheme of Administration shall amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested with authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution.
31. Now, it is not in dispute that there is a Scheme of Administration pertaining to the institution in question which has been approved under Section 16-A of the Act, 1921. Clause 11 of which is relevant and it reads as under:-
11. चुनाव प्रक्रिया
1- प्रबन्ध समिति का कार्यकाल समाप्त होने के तीन माह पूर्व ही चुनाव कराये जाने की प्रक्रिया प्रारम्भ कर दी जायेगी। इस हेतु प्रबन्ध समिति नयी कार्यकारिणी के गठन हेतु साधारण सभा के सभापति से अनुरोध करेगी। साधारण सभा के सभापति प्रबन्ध समिति के अनुरोध पत्र को संलग्न करते हुए जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक से चुनाव हेतु पर्यवेक्षक की मांग करेंगे।
यदि प्रबन्ध समिति चुनाव कराये जाने हेतु अनुरोध पत्र साधारण सभा के सभापति को नहीं सौपती है तो साधारण सभा के 1/3 सदस्य सभापति महोदय से चुनाव कराये जाने हेतु निवेदन कर सकते हैं।
साधारण सभा के 1/3 सदस्यों के अनुरोध पर भी चुनाव हेतु बैठक नहीं बुलायी जाती है तो वे जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक से चुनाव हेतु अनुरोध कर सकेंगे। इन सदस्यों के अनुरोध पर जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक पर्यवेक्षक नियुक्त करते हुए चुनाव हेतु तिथि, स्थान एवं समय निर्धारित करेगा, जिसकी सूचना साधारण सभा के सभापति को देगा। बैठक में सभापति की अनुपस्थिति की दशा में चुनाव के समय उपस्थित सदस्य आपस में मिलकर किसी एक को बैठक का सभापति बनायेंगे।
पुनश्च स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि प्रत्येक दशा में प्रबन्ध समिति का चुनाव जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक द्वारा नियुक्त पर्यवेक्षक की उपस्थिति एवं नियन्त्रण में निर्धारित तिथि स्थल एवं समय पर ही होगा।
शासनादेश संख्या-1009/15-9-2008-25(04)/ 2008 दिनांक 02-09-2008 के अनुसार प्रबन्ध समिति के चुनाव हेतु संस्था अधिकारी द्वारा पर्यवेक्षक की मांग किये जाने पर जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक द्वारा अधिकतम 07 दिन के अन्दर प्रबन्ध समिति के गठन हेतु चुनाव कराये जाने के लिये पर्यवेक्षक नामित कर दिया जायेगा।
32. The very opening line of Clause 11 makes it clear that process of election of a Committee of Management is to be initiated by the existing Committee of Management of the College three months prior to expiry of its terms, meaning thereby, the said clause applies where the process is initiated by the Committee of Management of the College while its tenure has not expired and it is still functioning. In this case, it is beyond cavil that vide order dated 07.06.2024 the earlier Committee of Management was superseded and an Authorised Controller was appointed in its place, therefore, on a bare reading of Clause 11 the same would not apply strictro sensuo because it was not a case of initiation of election process during subsistence of the earlier Managing Committee but after its supersession. Even otherwise, firstly, the managing Committee referred in Clause 11 is of the College and not the Society which has to make a request to the Chairman of the general body of the Society requesting for initiation of process of election to the Managing Committee of the College. Secondly, once the Authorised Controller had been appointed, the word Managing Committee used in Clause 11, in the facts of this case, would mean the Authorized Controller, as, he had taken over the Management of the Institution and the erstwhile Managing Committee was no longer functional nor in existence, therefore, this process should have been initiated under Clause 11 by the Authorized Controller, instead, the Manager of the Managing Committee of the Society initiated it and claims to have got the elections conducted. In fact, the order of appointment of Authorised Controller dated 07.06.2024 also specifically mentioned that he would ensure holding of the elections. The elections could not be held earlier as there was a dispute pertaining to Member of the general body of the Society, which, according to the respondents, came to be decided only in March, 2025. There was some dispute relating to members of the general body which as per the respondents no. 1 and 2 was decided only in March, 2025, therefore, the elections to the Committee of Management of the College could not be held earlier, although, it is the case of the appellants that even this order was erroneously passed, for recall/ objection to which, proceedings are pending before the Registrar.
33. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider the moot question as to whether the process of election was initiated and conducted by the competent authority who could only be the Authorized Controller. In fact, he has not at all recorded any finding regarding the appointment of Authorized Controller on 07.06.2024 inter alia for holding elections to Committee of Management of College, its impact on the entire subject matter and application of the statutorily approved scheme of administration of the College for the purposes of elections specifically Clause 11 thereof. In fact, Authorized Controller was not even a party before the writ Court yet it has allowed the writ petition with a direction to the D.I.O.S. to attest the signatures of the respondent no. 2.
34. It is not out of place to mention that the general body of the Society is also the general body for the College, though, the Committee of Managements are different. The Respondent no. 2 (Petitioner no. 2) was not the Manager of the outgoing Committee of Management of the College. Appellant no. 1 was its Manager.
35. Further, it is the case of the appellants as also the Principal of the College vide his letter dated 07.04.2025 and the D.I.O.S. that though 06.04.2025 was the date fixed for the election and the venue was the premises of the Intermediate College, Committee of Management of which was to be elected, but, no elections were held on the said date in the premises of the college. Of course, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 claims otherwise and in this process they rely on certain photographs but these photographs are hardly of any help to ascertain the place to which they may pertain. These are all questions of fact and are disputed, none of which have been adverted nor decided by the writ court. The writ Court has not considered as to whether these facts could be decided in writ jurisdiction. If not, whether a finding recorded by the D.I.O.S. could have been interfered with or not and whether a direction could have been issued to him to attest the signatures of the Respondent- petitioner no. 2 without deciding these issues?
36. Moreover, as already stated, once the Principal says that no election was held within the premises of the College and the learned Single Judge himself says that he could/should have elicited the response of other members of the general body to ascertain as to whether elections were held or not, then, he should have decided this issue as to whether elections were held on the date and venue fixed, as far as possible, but there is no way that the writ petition could have been allowed in favour of the respondent no. 2 with a direction to attest her signatures without deciding such issue.
37. During course of hearing a reference was made to the Government Order dated 20.10.2008 referable to Section 16-A(7) of the Act, 1921 to contend that it is a Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director which alone could have taken a decision with regard to the elections in question and attestation of signatures. Sub-section (7) of Section 16-A provides that whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognized to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. Government Order dated 20.10.2008 is referable to Sub-section (7) of Section 16-A of the Act, 1921. However, we have perused the said Government Order dated 20.10.2008. Firstly, it refers to a situation where elections have been validly held. Only in such cases, it has been provided that the D.I.O.S. shall take a decision regarding attestation of signatures of the Manager of such validly elected Managing Committee within two weeks, however, if the D.I.O.S. finds some legal impediment in this regard, then, he shall refer the matter within the same period to the Regional Committee which shall take a decision within one month. We are of the considered opinion, purely in the facts of this case, that, where, the very initiation of the process of election itself was de-hors the law and by a person not competent in this regard, then, the entire Election process was void ab initio and a nullity and, as, there could be no two views about it, therefore, even if, the matter had not been referred by the D.I.O.S. to the Regional Committee, it would not make much of a difference. Purely in the facts of this case, this contention also does not persuade us to remand the matter to the Regional Committee. It is not a case where rival persons were claiming to have been elected or there was a dispute between rivals pertaining to Management of institution but one where the entire process of election had been initiated and held by a person who had no authority in this regard, as already discussed, meaning thereby, the entire process was void ab initio and a nullity, an aspect which the Writ Court did not consider.
38. As regards non presence of the observer during such election, no doubt Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 submitted that an application for nomination of an observer was submitted by the Committee of Management whereupon the D.I.O.S. wrote to the Authorized Controller who is a Government Official and therefore, there was no basis for Committee of Management to believe that the observer had been declined and it presumed that Authorized Controller would act as the observer but, this contention is fallacious, firstly, for the reason that the process initiation of election and request for nomination of an observer should have been made by the Authorized Controller, who was acting as the Managing Committee and not by Manager of the Society (Respondent No. 2), therefore, the very initiation of the process of election by an incompetent person was bad in law and any further proceeding of election, which itself is disputed, were void ab initio. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the Government Order dated 20.10.2008, assuming that it is applicable, though, it is the case of the appellants that it is in the teeth of the statutorily approved scheme of administration, is, even otherwise, misplaced and irrelevant, as, the very initiation of the process of election was without jurisdiction.
39. As the facts and legal position are apparent before us, we see no reason to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge or to the Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director, as, apparently initiation of the process of election was by an unauthorized person who had no locus standi in the matter and it is the Authorized Controller of the College alone who could have initiated the process of election as per law and ensured its conduct. In view of this singular and fundamental jurisdictional error, all other issues, even though we have dealt with the same, pale into insignificance.
40. For all these reason, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge can not be sustained and it is accordingly quashed.
41. We have been informed that the respondent no. 2s signatures have been attested subsequent to passing of the impugned judgment. Be that at it may, such attestation is a consequence of the judgment of the learned Single Judge which we have quashed, therefore, any consequential action is also quashed. The Authorized Controller shall continue to manage the Institution, as earlier.
42. We accordingly, direct the Authorized Controller to initiate the process of election to the Committee of Management of the College strictly in accordance with statutorily approved scheme of administration and take it to its logical conclusion, at the earliest say within a period of two months. The Authorized Controller shall function as such under the order of this Court, subject to the provisions of Sub -section (3) and (4) of Section 6 of the Act, 1971 and if any orders are required to be passed by the competent authority to extend his term in this regard, the same would be passed forthwith.
43. The special appeal is allowed.
44. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
October 10, 2025
R.K.P.
