Uttarakhand High Court
Shri Gurunanak Shiksha Samiti vs State Of Uttarakhand on 21 February, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Sri Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Writ Petition (MS) No. 383 of 2024
Shri Gurunanak Shiksha Samiti
and another. ................Petitioners.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand
and others. .........Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Nivesh Bahuguan, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 5.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, the court made following
Judgment: (Per Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. By the previous order, Chief Education Officer, Udham
Singh Nagar was summoned by this Court only on the ground
that the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by him clearly
reveals that it has been passed in compliance of the direction
given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 06.07.2022 in
WPMS No. 1257 of 2022. After perusing the order dated
06.07.2022 passed by this Court, it appears that there was no such
direction to the Chief Education Officer and only this much
direction was issued that "in the meantime, present elected body
may continue with the affairs of the case"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as per the
By-laws, petitioner no. 1 is the Apex Society, which runs the
institutions and this Apex Society has informed this Court that
the election programme was notified on 05.06.2022 by the
petitioner and thereafter, petitioner no. 2 was elected as Manager
and charge was given to the newly elected Committee on
04.07.2022.
3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2
submits that charge was taken by the newly elected Committee
on 04.07.2022, therefore, on the date, when order was passed on
06.07.2022 in WPMS No. 1257 of 2022, petitioner no. 2 was the
body, which was continuing with the affairs of the institution.
4. It is very clear that on 06.07.2022, there was no direction to
the Chief Education Officer to pass any order. This Court only
directed the respondents to file counter affidavit and ordered the
matter to be listed on 23.08.2024 and as an interim measure, this
Court directed that in the meantime, the present elected body
may continue with the affairs of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was
no occasion on the part of the Chief Education Officer to pass any
subsequent order, which is impugned in the present writ petition
because there was no such direction by the Court by order dated
06.07.2022.
6. Mr. Pooran Singh learned counsel for the respondent no. 5
submits that in view of Clause 20 of the Scheme of
Administration, the Chief Education Officer has passed the
impugned order.
7. I have perused the Clause 20 of the Scheme of
Administration and as per Clause 20, if there is dispute between
the two parallel committees and the office bearers of the
Committee of Management, till the dispute is resolved, only for
an interim measure, some officer should be appointed to
discharge the function of the institution.
8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 09.02.2024, it
appears that the Chief Education Officer has accorded approval
to another Committee of Management and that too, showing that
it has been passed in compliance of order passed by this Court
dated 06.07.2022 though there was no such direction to the Chief
Education Officer to pass any order with regard to grant of
approval.
9. During the course of argument, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned
Chief Standing Counsel for the State, has fairly submitted that the
impugned order is not happily worded and it should not be
passed because in the order dated 06.07.2022, there was no such
direction to the Chief Education Officer. He further submits that
he will recall the order with immediate effect.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since
petitioner no. 1 is the apex body and the apex body is only
competent to hold the election as per By-laws and that was the
reason, Committee of Management headed by petitioner no. 2,
who was holding the charge, is looking the affairs of the
institution.
11. Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, who is
present in person, before this Court, undertakes that the
impugned order will be withdrawn.
12. In view of the above undertaking given by Chief Education
Officer that the impugned order shall be withdrawn, there is no
useful purpose to keep this writ petition pending, accordingly,
the same is dismissed, as infructuous.
__________________
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
21.02.2024
SKS
