Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Hindu Inter ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 18 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT C No. - 18053 of 2025
A.F.R.
Reserved on: 24.07.2025
Delivered on: 18.09.2025
Committee of Management, Hindu Inter College, Kandhla and Another
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P. And 5 Others
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Abhishek Shekhar Ojha, Anurag Kumar Ojha, Parmatma Nand Ojha, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Vikas Upadhyay
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 passed by respondent no.1 i.e. Special Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P. and also prayed for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of petitioners Committee of Management of the Institution.
Factual Matrix
2. The petitioners Institution is Non-Government aided Secondary School recognized upto Intermediate level. The above-said Institution is governed under the provision of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (here-in-after referred to as the Education Act) and regulation made therein. The school has an administration plan, approved and sanctioned by the department to run the Institution in accordance with Scheme. The Committee of Management of School was constituted as per the promulgated provisions. As per the scheme, the term of Committee of Management is three years and one month.
3. The last election of Committee of Management was held on 29.10.2023, in which one Pradeep Kumar Singhal was elected as Manager and one Satish Kumar Mittal was elected as President of Committee of Management of the Institution, which has been duly recognized by the District Inspector of Schools, Shamli (for short the D.I.O.S.).
4. Due to bad health, the then Manager Sri Pradeep Kumar Singhal had resigned from the post of Manager and the same had been accepted by the Committee of Management and Committee of Management has elected Sri Akash Kumar Singhal as a Manager for remaining period of Committee of Management of the Institution.
5. One Raj Kumar had made a complaint before the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj against the Manager and requested for initiation of an enquiry against the said Manager. On the above-said complaint, Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj directed to the Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur to make an enquiry against the petitioner. The Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj issued a show cause notice on 16.08.2023 under Section 16-D(3) of the Education Act to the petitioner. Against the said show cause notice dated 16.08.2023, petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing Writ C No.32169 of 2023 before this Court for quashing the said show cause notice on the ground that Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj has initiated the proceeding with mala fide intention on the complaint of the complainant.
6. The above-said Writ C No.32169 of 2023 has been dismissed by this Court on the ground that the instant writ petition was filed at premature stage as no final order had been passed. After completion of initial enquiry, the Divisional Finance and Account Officer, office of Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur has submitted a report dated 25.01.2022 to the Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur and subsequently the said report was forwarded to the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj vide covering letter dated 03.02.2022. The Additional Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. issued a notice on 25.02.2022 to the petitioner and sought the explanation within thirty days.
7. The Additional Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. made a report on 11.12.2024 and submitted it to the Deputy Secretary U.P. Government, Sanskriti Education Section (Secondary Education Section-9), Lucknow.
8. The Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. made a report dated 07.02.2025 and submitted it before Special Secretary, U.P. Government, Secondary Education Section-9 (Sanskriti Education Section), Lucknow. After considering the above-said reports dated 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025, the State Government passed an order dated 19.02.2025. The said order dated 19.02.2025 was challenged in Writ Petition No.6941 of 2025. This Court passed the order dated 19.03.2025, by which the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 therein had been set aside on the ground that the report dated 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025 were not supplied to the petitioners and direction had been issued to respondent no.1, Special Secretary (Secondary Education) Government of U.P., Lucknow to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months.
9. In pursuance of said order, the petitioner made a representation on 07.04.2025 and subsequently the Government of U.P. had issued a notice dated 02.05.2025, by which it was intimated that the petitioners may submit the explanation/reply and date had been fixed for hearing on 07.05.2025 at 3.30 p.m. in the office of Special Secretary (Secondary Education). The petitioners appeared before the respondent no.1 and sought further time for filing explanation and the time was granted and date was fixed on 14.05.2025. The petitioners appeared before the Special Secretary (Secondary Education) and submitted the written explanation. D.I.O.S. had also appeared before the Special Secretary after considering the oral submissions and written submissions of the petitioners. Respondent no.1 passed impugned order dated 19.05.2025, by which the authorized controller has been appointed for the period of six months.
10. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Submissions:
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 was passed by respondent no.1 without considering the averments made in the reply submitted on 14.05.2025, 24.03.2022, 14.03.2022 and 24.07.2024. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order, respondent no.1 has not even accorded any reason, therefore, the said order is non- speaking and vague and passed without application of mind.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions under Section 16-D(4) (8) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (here-in-after referred to as the Education Act) on account of fact that no notices were issued by any of the Education Authority to the petitioners with regard to election dated 29.01.2024. It is also submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 is only passed upon the ex parte reports sent by the Educational Authorities from time to time against the petitioners, since the petitioners averments have not been considered by the respondent no.1 while passing the impugned order and there were no finding recorded by respondent no.1 for rejecting the averments of the petitioners.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as per Clause 10 of the Scheme of Administration clearly provides that any person who has been elected by the Committee of Management of the Institution for remaining period of term of Committee of Management of the Institution is legal and valid. It is submitted that in pursuance of the directions given by Director of Secondary Education, U.P. Prayagraj to the District Inspector of Schools, Shamli on 04.08.2023 and the direction given by the Director of Education, U.P. Prayagraj to the Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Region Saharanpur on 02.04.2023 and 02.05.2023, neither the District Inspector of Schools, Shamli nor the Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur has afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners prior to submitting the recommendation to the Director of Secondary Education, U.P. Prayagraj. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 passed by respondent no.1 is arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of power violating the principle of natural justice and deserves to be set aside.
14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that there are no illegality or error in the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed by respondent no.1 after considering the entirety of the matter and material on record. It is submitted that on early occasion, an audit/enquiry report dated 25.01.2022 was submitted by the Divisional Finance and Account Officer, office of Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur before the Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur and subsequently, it was forwarded before the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Prayagraj by a covering letter dated 03.02.2022 and in pursuance of it, the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. issued a notice on 25.02.2022 to the petitioners/Manager, Committee of Management, Hindu Inter College, Kandhla, District Shamli and sought explanation within 30 days.
15. It is further submitted that the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. made a report on 11.12.2024 and submitted it before Deputy Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government, Sanskriti Education Section (Secondary Education Section-9), Lucknow. The Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. made a report on 07.02.2025 and submitted it before Special Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government, Secondary Education Section-9 (Sanskriti Education Section) Lucknow. After considering the above-said reports dated 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025, the State Government passed an order dated 19.02.2025 and subsequently it was challenged by means of writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.6941 of 2025. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the order dated 19.03.2025, by which the impugned order dated 19.02.2025 has been quashed on the ground that the report dated 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025 were not supplied to the petitioners and directions has been issued upon respondent no.1, Special Secretary (Secondary Education) Government of U.P., Lucknow to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months.
16. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the said order, the petitioners made a representation on 07.04.2025 and subsequently the Government of U.P. had issued a notice dated 02.05.2025, by which it had been intimated that the petitioners may submit the explanation as per his requirement in the matter concern and date was fixed for hearing in the office of Special Secretary (Secondary Education). It is further submitted that in the instant notice dated 02.05.2025, the reports dated 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025 had also been enclosed, therefore, the petitioners have full knowledge about the facts of the case and also have knowledge about two reports i.e. 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025.
17. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents further clarified that since on the earlier occasion this Court had set aside the order passed by the Special Secretary only on the ground that both the reports dated 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025 were not supplied to the petitioners. It is vehemently submitted that on 07.05.2025, the petitioners appeared before the Special Secretary and sought time for filing their replication/explanation for their case and the next date was fixed on their request on 14.05.2025. On 14.05.2025, the D.I.O.S., Shamli and the Manager of the Institution appeared before the Special Secretary (Secondary Education) and the Manager submitted his oral statement as well as his written submissions. Thereafter, the Special Secretary after considering the reply and submissions of respective parties, passed the impugned order dated 19.05.2025.
18. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted that in view of the above-said facts, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for issuance of writ, order or direction as prayed in the instant writ petition. The instant writ petition is devoid of merit and has to be dismissed.
19. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.N. Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appeared to assist the Court.
Analysis and Findings
20. Taking into consideration the submissions made in forgoing paragraphs, the short question for determination is as to whether the State Government before passing the order under Section 16 (D) (4) of the Act is bound to give an opportunity to Committee to show cause.
21. Provisions under Section 16-D of the Act is quoted as under:
[16-D. (1) The Director may cause a recognized institution to be inspected from time to time.
(2) The Director may direct a management to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise.
(3) If on the receipt of information or otherwise, the Director is satisfied that -
(i) the Committee of Management of an institution has failed to comply with the judgment of any court or any direction made under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; or
(ii) the Committee has failed to appoint teaching staff
possessing such qualifications as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of academic standard in the institution or has appointed or retained in service any teaching or non-teaching staff in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the Regulations; or
(iii) any dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons to be lawful office-bearers of the Committee of Management has affected the smooth and orderly administration of the institution concerned; or
(iv) the Committee has persistently failed to provide the
institution with such adequate and proper accommodation, library, furniture, stationery, laboratory equipment or other facilities as are necessary for the efficient administration of such institution; or
(v) the Committee has substantially diverted misapplied or
misappropriated the property of the institution to its detriment or has transferred any property in contravention of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974 (U.P. Act No.3 of 1975);or
(vi) the draft of the Scheme of Administration has not been
submitted within the time allowed therefore under Section 16-B, or that the Management of the institution is being conducted otherwise than in accordance with the Scheme of Administration or the affairs of the institution are being otherwise mis-managed;
(vii) the Scheme of Administration in relation to an institution, approved before the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980, is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the management of the institution has failed to alter or modify it within a reasonable time despite notice under section 16-CCC; he may refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such institution, or issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice why an order under sub-section (4) should not be made.
(4) Where the Committee of Management of an institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under sub-section (3) or within such extended time as the Director may, from time to time allow, or where the Director, is after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) exists, he may recommend to the State Government to appoint an Authorized Controller for that institution, and thereupon, the State Government may, by order, for reasons to be recorded, authorize any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorized Controller) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years, as may be specified, the Management of such institution and its properties:
Provided that if the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient so to do in order to continue to secure the proper management of the institution and its properties, it may, from time to time, extend the operation of the order, for such period, not exceeding one year at a time, as it may specify, so however, that the total period of operation of the order, including the period specified in the initial order, but excluding the period specified in sub-section (8), does not exceed five years :
Provided further that if at the expiration of the said period of five years, there is no lawfully constituted Committee of Management of the institution, the Authorized Controller shall continue to function as such, until the State Government is satisfied that a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted.
22. As per aforesaid scheme of the statute contained in Section 16(D)(1) provides that Director may cause a recognized institution to be inspected from time to time, sub Clause (2) would provide that the Director may direct the management to remove any defect or deficiency found during the inspection or otherwise, whereas, sub Clause 3 provides the eventualities upon which the Director may refer the case of the Institution to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such Institution and issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice why an order under sub Section (4) should not be made. Sub Clause (4) would provide that where the Committee of Management of an Institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under Sub Section (3) or within such extended time as the Director may from time to time allow, where the Director, after considering the show cause shown by the Committee of Management is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub Section (3) exists, he may, recommend to the State Government to appoint an authorized controller for that Institution.
23. On plain reading, sub-section (4) is silent regarding requirements of notice to be served upon the Committee of Management before any order is passed by the State Government.
24. The question how far the principle of natural justice govern administrative enquiries came up for consideration before the Queens Bench Division In re H. K. (An Infant)1 Therein the validity of the action taken by an Immigration Officer came up for consideration. In the course of his Judgement Lord Parker C.J. observed thus:
"But at the same time, I myself think that even if an immigration officer is not in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, he must at any rate give the immigrant an opportunity of satisfying him of the matters in the sub-section, and for that purpose let the immigrant know what his immediate impression is so that the immigrant can disabuse him. That is not, as I see it, a question of acting or being required to act judicially, but of being required to act fairly. Good administration and an honest. or bona fide decision must, as it seems to me, require not merely impar-tiality, nor merely bringing one's mind to bear on the problem, but acting fairly, and to the limited extent that the circumstances of any particular case allow, and within the legislative framework under which the administrator is working, only to that limited extent do the so-called rules of natural justice apply, which in a case such as this is merely a duty to act fairly. I appreciate that in saying that it may be said that one is going further than is permitted on the decided cases because heretofore at any rate the decisions of the courts do seem to have drawn a strict line in these matters according to whether there is or is not a duty to act judicially or quasi-judicially.
25. In the same case Blain J., observed thus:
"I would only say that an immigration officer having assumed the jurisdiction granted by those provisions is in a position where it is his duty to exercise that assumed jurisdiction whether it be administrative, executive or quasi-judicial, fairly, by which I mean applying his mind dispassionately to a fair analysis of the particular problem and the information available to him in analysing it. If in any hypothetical case, and in any real case, this court was satisfied that an immigration officer was not so doing, then in my view mandamus would lie.
26. In the case of Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala,2 Honble Supreme Court held that rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
27. I may, however, hasten to add that no general rule of universal application can be laid down as to the applicability of the principle of natural justice, in addition to the language of the provision, undoubtedly, that can be exceptions to the said doctrine.
28. The question whether the principle has to be applied or not is to be considered bearing in mind the express language and the basic schemes of the provision conferring the power; the nature of the power conferred; the purpose for which the power is conferred and the final effect of the exercise of that power.
29. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 are reproduced here-in-below:-
"6- दिनांक 14.05.2025 को विशेष सचिव, माध्यमिक शिक्षा विभाग, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन की अध्यक्षता में सम्पन्न सुनवाई बैठक में संस्था प्रबंधक द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये उपर्युक्त प्रस्तर-5 में वर्णित पक्ष / बिन्दुओं के सम्बन्ध में वस्तुस्थिति निम्नवत् हैः-
> हिंदू इंटर कॉलेज, कांधला, शामली एक अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यमिक संस्था है, जिस पर इंटरनीडियंट शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921. व वेतन वितरण अधिनियम 1971 से प्रविधान प्रभावी व पोषित है।
> संस्था में व्याप्त वित्तीय अनियमितताओं के संबंध में प्राप्त शिकायतों के आधार पर मंडलीय संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक सहारनपुर ने वित्तीय अनियमितता होने के दृष्टिगत प्रकरण की जाँच मंडलीय ऑडिट इकाई, सहारनपुर से करायी गयी।
> मंडलीय ऑडिट इकाई सहारनपुर ने अपनी संप्रेक्षण आख्या में निम्नवत वित्तीय अनियमितता के पुष्टित होने के सबंध में स्थिति से अवगत कराया गया-
ऑडिट के दौरान उपलब्ध कराये गये रिकार्ड की जाँच से निम्न तथ्य / वित्तीय अनियमितताएं संज्ञानित हुयी-
कैशबुक के अनुसार नकद धनराशि उपलब्ध होते हुए भी प्रत्येक माह नकद आहरण बैंक से किया जाता रहा जिसका कोई औचित्य स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया।
अधिकांशतः भुगतान नकद ही किये गये हैं जबकि नियमानुसार समस्त भुगतान चौक के माध्यम से किये जाने चाहिए।
निर्माण कार्यों में किये गये व्यय बिल बाऊचर्स इत्यादि की जाँच के समय यह तथ्य भो प्रकाश में आया कि किसी भी प्रकार की टेण्डर/कोटेशन की प्रकिया नहीं अपनायी गयी है।
दिनांक 09.10.2019 को कैशबुक (बैंक / दुकानों से प्राप्त किराये के सम्बन्ध में) में 22,000.00 का व्यय लोन के रिपेयमेंट के नाम से किया गया है जिस सम्बन्ध में कोई विवरण उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया।
दिनांक 17.01.2020 को कैशबुक में 1,25,000.00 रु० का नकद व्यय दर्शाया गया है जबकि इस सम्बन्ध में विद्यालय द्वारा कोई भी स्थिति स्पष्ट नहीं की गयी।
कैशबुक के अनुसार उपलब्ध नकद का माहवार भौतिक सत्यापन किया जाना चाहिए जिसके सम्बन्ध में कोई स्थिति स्पष्ट नहीं की गयी।
ऑडिट की अवधि के दौरान वर्तमान में अवशेष नकद का भौतिक सत्यापन भी ऑडिंट टीम को नहीं कराया गया।
विद्यालय कैशबुक के परीक्षण से संज्ञानित है कि अनेको निर्माण कार्यों के प्रति नकद व्यय दर्शाये गये है परन्तु मजदूरी के सम्वन्ध में दैनिक मस्टर रोल प्रस्तुत नहीं किये गये।
> उपरोक्त स्थिति स्पष्ट हो जाने के उपरांत संस्था में व्याप्त वित्तीय अनियमितता के निराकरण हेतु मंडलीय संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक, सहारनपुर ने संस्था प्रकरण समिति के विरुद्ध इंटरमीडियट शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921 की धारा 16डी(2) के अधीन कार्यवाही किये जाने के संबंध में निदेशालय को प्रकरण संदर्भित किया गया।
> उपरोक्त प्राप्त प्रस्ताव के आलोक में इंटरमीडियट शिक्षा अधिनियन 1921 की धारा 16 डी (2) के अधीन संस्था प्रबन्धक को निदेश निर्गत करते हुये प्राप्त वित्तीय अनियमितता की निराकरण आख्या उपलब्ध कराये जाने के संबंध में निर्देशित किया गया।
> तत्क्रम में संस्था प्रबन्धक से प्राप्त उनके अभिकथन पर जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक शामली से संस्तुति उपलब्ध कराये जाने के संबंध में निर्देशित किया गया, जिसके अनुपालन में जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक शामली ने वित्तीय अनियमितता स्पष्ट होने की स्थिति में संस्था प्रबंध समिति के विरुद्ध इंटरमीडियट शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921 की धारा 16 डी के अधीन कार्यवाही किये जाने के संबंध में संस्तुति की गयी।
> इसी क्रम में मंडलीय संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक, सहारनपुर ने भी संस्था वित्तीय अनियनितता संज्ञानित व स्पष्ट हो जाने के दृष्टिगत संस्था प्रबंध समिति के विरुद्ध इंटरमीडियट शिला अधिनियम 1921 की धारा 16 डी के अधीन कार्यवाही किये जाने के संबंध में संस्तुति की गयी।
> उपरोक्त मंडलीय/जनपदीय अधिकारियों से प्राप्त प्रस्ताव / संस्तुति के आलोक मे इंटरमीडियट शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921 की धारा 16 डी (3) के अधीन निदेशालय द्वारा संस्था प्रबन्धक, हिन्दू इण्टर कालेज, कांधला, शामली को कारण बताओं नोटिस निर्गत करते हुये अधिनियम में स्थापित व्यवस्था के अधीन ३० दिवस के भीतर अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत किये जाने के संबंध में आदेशित किया गया।
> संस्था प्रबन्धक द्वारा उपरोक्त निर्धारित 30 दिवस के भीतर अपना अभिकथन प्रस्तुत न किये जाने के दृष्टिगत इंटरमीडियट शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921 की धारा 16 डी की उपधारा-4 के अधीन निदेशालय द्वारा प्रकरण की स्थिति से अवगत कराते हुये संस्था की परिसंपत्तियों के प्रबंधन हेतु प्राधिकृत नियंत्रक नियुक्त किये जाने के संबंध में प्रकरण को शासन संदर्भित कर दिया गया।
> संस्था प्रबन्धक ने निदेशालय द्वारा निर्गत धारा-16 डी-3 की नोटिस के विरुद्ध एक याचिका संख्या 32169/2023 व शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा एक याचिका संख्या 20059/2023 योजित की गयी उक्त दोनों मान० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सम्बद्ध करते हुये अपने निर्णय दिनांक 31-01-2024 द्वारा उपरोक्त याचिकाओं को खारिज कर दिया गया।
> संस्था प्रबंध समिति ने अपना पक्ष शासन के समक्ष दिनांक 27.04.2024 को सम्पन्न सुनवाई बैठक में प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसके सापेक्ष शासन ने संस्था प्रबन्धक की व्यक्तिगत सुनवाई किये जाने के उपरांत द्वारा शासन को प्रस्तुत किये गये अभिकथन पर संस्तुति उपलब्ध कराये जाने के सबंध में निर्देशित किया गया।
7- इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है क़ि संस्था प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा संस्था की वित्तीय परिसंपत्तियों को विभागीय वित्तीय नियमों के विपरीत जाकर नगद कैश के रूप में लेन-देन किया गया। उक्त नगद लेन देन मे प्रबंधतंत्र यह स्पष्ट करने में असफल रहा कि, लेन देन की गयी धनराशि संस्था हित में की गयी थी अथवा व्यक्तिगत? यदि संस्था प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा वित्तीय नियमों के अनुरूप धनराशि का अंतरण बैंक अथवा सरकार द्वारा प्रचलित प्रक्रियाओं (ई-पेमेंट, चेक आदि) के माध्यम से किया जाता तो यह प्रमाणित हो सकता था कि संस्था की निधि किसको अंतरित की गयी व किस प्रयोजन हेतु ? किन्तु उक्त स्थिति के विपरीत जाकर संख्था प्रबंधतंत्र ने जानबूझकर संस्था निधि को वित्तीय नियमों के विपरीत लेन देन किया गया जोकि वित्तीय अनियमितता की श्रेणी में आता है, जिस हेतु संस्था की परिसंपत्तियों के प्रबंधन हेतु इंटरमीडियट शिक्षा अधिनियम 1921 की धारा 16 डी (4) के अधीन् प्राधिकृत नियंत्रक नियुक्त किये जाने के सम्बन्ध में शिक्षा निदेशक, माध्यमिक, उ०प्र० प्रयागराज द्वारा शासन को की गयी संस्तुति उचित है।
8-उक्त के अतिरिक्त शिक्षा निर्देशक, माध्यगिक द्वारा अपनी संस्तुति में शासन को यह भी अवगत कराया गया है कि श्री प्रदीप कुमार सिंघल, प्रबन्धक, हिन्दू इण्टर कॉलेज, कांधला, शामली द्वारा अपनी स्वास्थ्य सम्बन्धी समस्याओं के कारण दिनांक 18.01.2024 को उपाध्यक्ष, प्रबन्ध समिति, हिन्दू इण्टर कालेज, कांधला शामली को अपना त्याग-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया। फलतः प्रबन्ध समिति की दिनांक 29.01.2024 को आहूत बैठक में श्री प्रदीप कुमार सिंघल का त्याग पत्र स्वीकार करते हुए शेष अवधि के लिए प्रबन्धक का कार्यभार साधारण सभा के आजीवन सदस्य श्री आकाश कुमार सिंघल को दिये जाने का विनिश्चय किया गया। प्रबन्ध समिति के उपरोक्त प्रस्ताव के आधार पर जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, शामली की आख्यानुसार विद्यालय की स्वीकृत / अनुमोदित प्रशासन योजना की धारा-10 (1) में निहित व्यवस्थानुसार शेष अवधि हेतु श्री आकाश कुमार सिंघल के हस्ताक्षर संस्था प्रबन्धक के रूप में जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, शामली द्वारा प्रमाणित कर दिये गये।
9-प्रकरण में पूर्व में मण्डलीय संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक, सहारनपुर की आख्या दिनांक 27.06.2024 के साथ प्राप्त संस्था हिन्दू इण्टर कालेज, कांधला, शामली की अनुमोदित / स्वीकृत प्रशासन योजना की धारा-10 (1) में उल्लिखित है कि "समिति के सदस्यों (पदेन सदस्यों से भिन्न) या समिति के पदाधिकारियों के पद में होने वाली किसी आकस्मिक रिक्ति की पूर्ति समिति द्वारा कार्यकाल की शेष अवधि के लिए की जाएगी और इस प्रकार नियुक्त व्यक्ति उस शेष काल के लिए संमिति का सदस्य या पदाधिकारी (जैसी भी दशा हो) होगा, जिसके लिए वह व्यक्ति रहता, जिसके स्थान की वह पूर्ति करता है। ऐसी रिक्ति की पूर्ति हेतु पदेन तथा मनोनीत सदस्य भी वोट देने के अधिकारी होंगे।"
10-उपरोक्त अनुमोदित/स्वीकृत प्रशासन योजना में समिति का तात्पर्य स्कूल की प्रबंध समिति से है का उल्लेख है। इस प्रकार जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षक, शामली द्वारा विद्यालय में सर्वप्रथम श्री प्रदीप कुमार सिंहल की दिनांक 29.01.2024 को त्याग-पत्र से फलित आकस्मिक रिधि पर साधारणसभा के सदस्य श्री आकाश कुमार सिंहल के चयन को अनुमोदित करते हुए उनके हस्ताक्षर प्रमाणन की कार्यवाही की गयी, जो विद्यालय की अनुमोदित/स्वीकृत प्रशासन योजना से निम्न कार्यवाही है। श्री आकाश कुमार सिंहल साधारण सभा के पदेन सदस्य है, जबकि संस्था की अनुमोदित / स्वीकृत प्रशासन योजना के अंतर्गत प्रबन्ध समिति के सदस्यों या पदाधिकारियों से ही प्रबन्धक के पद की आकस्मिक रिक्ति की पूर्ति की जानी थी। इस प्रकार जिला विद्यालय निरीक्षण, शामली द्वारा की गयी उपरोक्त कार्यवाही अनुमोदित / स्वीकृत प्रशासन योजना के विपरीत है।
11-मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा रिट याचिका सी० संख्या-6941/2025 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 19.03.2025 के अनुपालन में शासन स्तर पर आहूत सुनवाई बैठक दिनांक 07.05.2025 एवं दिनांक 14.05.2025 में याची प्रबंध समिति / प्रबंधक द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये मौखिक एवं लिखित पक्ष/तर्क (जिनका उल्लेख प्रस्तर-5 में किया गया है) उपर्युक्त प्रस्तर-6 से 10 में वर्णित वस्तुस्थिति एवं तथ्यों के दृष्टिगत पूर्णतः आधारहीन एवं बलहीन है।
12-अतः मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा रिट याचिका सी० संख्या-6941/2025 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 19.03.2025 के अनुपालन में शासन सार पर आहूत सुनवाई बैठक दिनांक 07.05.2025 एवं दिनांक 14.05.2025 में याची प्रबंध समिति / प्रबंधक द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये मौखिक एवं लिखित पक्ष/तर्क उपर्युक्त प्रस्तर-6 से 10 में वर्णित वस्तुस्थिति एवं तथ्यों के दृष्टिगत पूर्णतः आधारहीन एवं बलहीन होने के कारण संख्या हिंदू इंटर कॉलेज, कांधला, शामली की प्रबंध समिति के विरुद्ध माध्यमिक शिक्षा अधिनियम, 1921 की धारा 16 डी (4) के अंतर्गत प्रबन्ध तंत्र को अतिक्रमित करते हुए संस्था एवं उसकी परिसम्पत्तियों के प्रबन्धन हेतु जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी, शामली (पदेन) को श्री राज्यपाल इस शर्त के साथ छ (06) माह हेतु प्राधिकृत नियंत्रक नियुक्त करते हैं कि प्राधिकृत नियंत्रक द्वारा निर्धारित समयावधि में संस्था में व्याप्त अनियमितताओं का निराकरण करते हुए संस्था में मान्य प्रबन्ध समिति के गठन की कार्यवाही की जाएगी।"
30. After perusal of the aforesaid impugned order dated 19.05.2025, by which an authorized controller has been appointed in the school due to alleged financial irregularities. As per the pleadings and material on record in the instant matter, an audit report dated 25.01.2022 was submitted by the Divisional Finance and Account Officer, office of Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur before Joint Director of Education, subsequently it was forwarded to Director of Education (Secondary), Prayagraj vide letter dated 03.02.2022. In pursuance of it, the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh issued a notice on 25.02.2022 to the petitioner and sought the explanation within 30 days. The Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. made a report on 11.12.2024 and same was submitted to Deputy Secretary, U.P. The Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. made a report on 07.02.2025 and submitted to Special Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P. After considering the aforesaid reports, the State Government passed an order dated 19.02.2025. The said order was challenged in the High Court vide Writ Petition No.6941 of 2025. The Co-ordinate Bench quashed the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Government vide order dated 19.03.2025 on the ground that the aforesaid both reports dated 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025 were not supplied to the petitioners. It was further directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
31. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the Government of U.P. has issued notice dated 02.05.2025 to the petitioners and called for explanation and date was fixed for hearing on 07.05.2025 at 3.30 p.m. in the office of Special Secretary (Secondary Education). On 07.05.2025, petitioners appeared and sought the time for filing his reply of show cause and next date was fixed on 14.05.2025. On 14.05.2025, the D.I.O.S., Shamli and the petitioners appeared before the Special Secretary. The petitioners submitted their oral submissions as well as written submissions before the Special Secretary, then the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 was passed by which an authorized controller has been appointed for period of six months.
32. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that requirement of recording reasons mentioned in Sub-Section (4) of Section 16(D) of the Act has not complied with. After perusal of aforesaid facts, the petitioners had been given opportunity for hearing and for submitting the explanation before the Special Secretary. The officer concerned after taking into the consideration the explanation and material on record before him rejected the explanation of the petitioners and passed the impugned order. Recording of reasons is preceded by consideration of the explanation followed by agreement or disagreement with the explanation submitted by the Management. Reasons recorded in that behalf would not constitute compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 16(D) of the Act. It is settled law that Administrative Authorities are not required to record reasons as elaborately as an order by a Court. What is required is application of mind to the relevant facts placed before the Administrative Authority; short reasons that weight with them to take action need to be recorded. It is seen that the order at law is an elaborate one and from the record it is seen that the Secretary has given opportunity to all the parties to explain their cases. After consideration of the explanation of the petitioners as well as audit reports and other reports submitted in the competent officials of the education department, passed the impugned order.
33. It is settled law that High Court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not like an appellate authority to consider the dispute. It has to see whether the impugned order is based on records or whether the authorities have applied their own mind to the relevant facts. When the facts do exist on record and Government have applied their mind to those facts and came to the conclusion that from the facts so collected they were satisfied that the Committee had contravened clauses (v) and (vi) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 16-D of the Act , they have rightly exercised the power under Sub-Section (4) of Section 16D of the Act.
Conclusions:-
34. In the case at hand, after perusal of the records and pleadings, I am satisfied that the State Government before passing the impugned order, have put the Committee of Management to notice and the Committee of Management duly replied to the notice and also presented its case before the Special Secretary as discussed above. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there are no illegality or errors in the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Special Secretary, Govt. of U.P. After taking into consideration of the material, I am also of the view that the Committee should not be allowed to be in the management of the institution. Accordingly, the Authorized Controller is directed to immediately take over the Management of the institution and set right the running of the institution on proper line, then conduct the election within the period prescribed under the Act and hand over the management to newly elected body.
35. The instant writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
September 18, 2025
Atul
