Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 March, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (MS) No. 1158 of 2021
Mohd. Yameen
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others
...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (MS) No. 1246 of 2021
Abrar Ahmed and Others
...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others
...Respondents
Presence:
1. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil
Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in the
connected writ petition.
3. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
4. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondent.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)
This Court on 20.02.2025 passed the following order:
"Admittedly, in the present writ petition, the
Authorized Controller was appointed on 31.12.2020 due to
the expiry of the tenure of the then Committee of
Management. However, the then Committee of Management
during their tenure initiated process for induction of the new
members and almost 1054 persons submitted their
applications with requisite fee, which is prior to the date of
the appointment of the Authorized Controller, and, thereafter,
the Chief Education Officer approved the list of 1007 persons
as member of general body after due verification by a
Committee, which was constituted to examine whether the
procedure prescribed under Scheme of Administration was
followed or not.
4. Admittedly, as on today, there is a list of 1007
members, which was approved by the Chief Education
Officer. It has been informed to this Court that in the
Institution the Authorized Controller is continuing since
31.12.2020 and despite the fact that the list of the members of
the general body, was approved by the Chief Education
Officer, no attempts were made by the respondents to hold the
election for constituting the new Committee of Management.
5. Let the respondents may proceed with the election
process by issuing proper advertisement as per scheme of
Administration, and apprise to this Court.
6. Put up this matter on 06.03.2025.
7. On that day, Mr. N. S. Pundir, learned Dy.A.G. shall
apprise this Court as to whether the election process has been
initiated or not or to show cause."
2. Yesterday, it has been informed that against this
order a Special Appeal No. 35 of 2025 was preferred and the
order dated 20.02.2025 was set-aside. The order passed by the
Division Bench has also been reproduced herein as under:
"The appellant is before this Court being aggrieved by the
order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1158 of 2021, whereby the learned
Single Judge had directed the respondent to hold the election
for constituting the new Committee of Management.
2. Since the order of approval granted by the Chief Education
Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the list of
1007 persons as members of General Body, has been
cancelled by the Divisional Additional Director (Secondary
Education) Kumaon Division, Nainital vide order dated
27.04.2022, therefore, these 1007 members cannot be
permitted to participate in the election. Furthermore, in light
of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in
Committee of Management Inter College Dhamkeshwar.
Pauri Garhwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, reported in
2013 SCC OnLine Utt 3650, the Authorized Controller has no
power to induct the new members Committee of
Management.
3. In such view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the Special Appeal
is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 is set
aside. The matter is remitted back to learned Single Judge for
consideration afresh."
3. The Chief Education Officer and the Authorized
Controller of the Institution are present in court and submits that
1007 members were inducted as members of the general body by
the then existing committee of management by issuing an
advertisement and the requisite fee by those proposed members,
who were inducted in the general body submitted their fee by
way of bank draft before the appointment of the authorized
controller in the institution. They also submits that the authorized
controller was appointed on 31.12.2020 and thereafter for
verifying the documents relating to the new inducted members
only a committee was constituted on the proposal of the then
authorized controller and after due verification the list of 1007
members were approved by the Chief Education Officer on
15.03.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Parikshit
Saini submits that this order of approval of the Chief Education
Officer was cancelled by the Additional Director on 27.04.2022.
5. On such submission Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned
senior counsel and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel, objected
that the order of the approval of the Chief Education Officer was
never been cancelled.
6. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, who is the Standing Counsel for
the State, on perusal of the order dated 27.04.2022 also pointed
out that the approval as given by the Chief Education Officer was
never been cancelled by the Additional Director by order dated
27.04.2022 and only this much direction was issued to constitute
committee of management strictly as per clause-8 of the Scheme
of Administration.
7. Since, now the Chief Education Officer and the
Authorized Controller of the institution, who are the Government
servants are present who stated that 1007 members were inducted
by the committeee of management and the requisite fee were also
deposited by way of a bank draft before the appointment of the
authorized controller and the list was approved by the Chief
Education Officer and these 1007 members were never been
inducted by the then authorized controller. Let both the officials
may file their respective affidavits in this regard within a week.
8. Put up this matter on 04.04.2025.
9. Personal appearance of the officials are now
exempted.
. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
26.03.2025
PR
