Committee Of Management Rmpp Vidyalaya ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 916 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Committee Of Management Rmpp Vidyalaya ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 11 February, 2026

                                                                2026:UHC:794-DB

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
                                      AND
        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
                         11TH FEBRUARY, 2026
              SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2026

Committee           of      Management        RMPP          Vidyalaya        Inter
College Gurukul Narsan                                       ......Appellant.
                                 Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others                               ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant         :         Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State             :         Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing
                                            Counsel with Mr. Navin Tiwari, learned
                                            Brief Holder.
Counsel for Respondent No.5       :         Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel.

JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against

the order and judgment of learned Single Judge dated

02.01.2026 in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2245 of 2025,

"Committee of Management RMPP Vidhyalaya Inter College

vs. State of Uttarakhand & others".

2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant

challenging the validity of the order dated 09.04.2025,

whereby respondent no.2- Director, School Education,

Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, office at Nanoor Kheda,

Dehradun, constituted a three Member Inquiry Committee

to examine the complaint of the private respondent (non-

appellant no.5 herein) made in respect of the order dated

28.01.2025 by Additional Director of Education, Garhwal

2026:UHC:794-DB

Mandal, Pauri directing respondent no.4 to recognize the

election of the appellant- Committee of Management under

the provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act,

2006 and Regulations framed thereunder and clause 9(4) of

the Scheme of Administration. Respondent no.5 alleged that

the so called election of the appellant- Committee of

Management dated 15.01.2025 was a fake one and the

committee was accordingly constituted to enquire into the

said aspect. Also under challenge was the order dated

27.06.2025 also issued by respondent no.2 in continuation

of the earlier order and taking notice of a subsequent

complaint dated 26.06.2025 made by the same private

respondent. Thereby, respondent no.2 had constituted

another three Member Committee to examine the

allegations made in the complaint dated 26.06.2025 for

suspension of the management on ground of misuse of

managerial powers and various fraudulent acts till the

question of validity of the election, in pursuance of the

earlier complaint, is decided.

3. One of the grounds for challenge before the writ

court to the constitution of the committees on basis of

complaint made by respondent no.5 was that respondent

no.2 was not having any power to sit over the orders of the

Additional Director of Education and Chief Election Officer,

2026:UHC:794-DB

Haridwar dated 28.01.2025 and 05.02.2025 respectively,

recognizing the elections.

4. The learned Single Judge has held that, in fact,

the complaint made by the private respondent by way of an

appeal was with regard to the correctness of the order of

approval of the election by the Additional Director of

Education, and the said question can always be examined

by the higher authority, i.e. the Director. The learned

Single Judge has referred to the Full Bench judgment of the

Allahabad High Court in "Committee of Management,

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Inter College, Bansgaon &

another vs. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur

& others", reported in 2004 SCC OnLine All 1107.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that,

in the present case, there was no dispute of rival

committees and the appellant- Committee of Management

is the only Committee, who claim to have been elected. He

further submits that in such circumstances, there was also

no dispute in relation to actual control of the affairs of the

Institution and consequently, Section 29(7) would not get

attracted, nor the law laid down by the Full Bench,

regarding scope of power under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P.

Intermediate Education Act, pari materia with Section 29(7)

of the Uttarkhand School Education Act. He further submits

2026:UHC:794-DB

that the said dispute can only be raised under the

provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

6. In support of his submission, he has invited the

attention of the Court to an earlier adjudication between

the appellant and the same private respondent in Special

Appeal No.280 of 2020, dated 05.08.2022, where also

respondent no.5 questioned the validity of earlier election of

the appellant- committee said to have been held on

17.10.2021. In the said special appeal, it was held that the

Chief Education Officer was not invested with any power to

examine the validity of the election and the said dispute can

only be raised under Section 25 of the Societies Registration

Act, 1860.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also places

reliance on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment in "Jaipal Singh

vs. State of Uttarakhand & others", reported in 2011

SCC OnLine Utt 346 in support his submission.

8. Learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for

the State and Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel

appearing for respondent no.5 are not in a position to

dispute that in earlier round of litigation between the same

parties, it was authoritatively laid down by this Court in

Special Appeal No.280 of 2022 that the validity of the

2026:UHC:794-DB

election cannot be examined by the Education Authorities in

absence of any such power conferred upon them under the

Scheme of Administration, except when there is dispute

between two rival committees. It can only be raised under

Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

9. Section 29(7) of the Uttarakhand School

Education Act, 2006 reads as under:-

"29(7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Additional director of Education upon such enquiry deemed fit to be in actual control of its affair may, for purpose of Act, be recognized to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise:

Provided that the Regional Additional Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing."

10. The said provision, admittedly, is pari materia

with Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education

Act, 1921.

11. The Full Bench considered three questions, which

are as follows:-

"1. Whether the Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exercises administrative or quasi-judicial powers.

2. Whether the Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the Act can go into the question of validity of the elections.

2026:UHC:794-DB

3. Whether in case the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the elections of both the rival committees are invalid, still he can decides the question of actual control and recognize one or the other committee of management."

12. The Full Bench held as under:-

"1. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exercises quasi judicial powers, and not purely administrative powers.

2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, must decide the question of validity of the elections prima facie, in deciding the question of actual control over the affairs of the institution.

3. Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the elections of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control to recognize one or the other Committee of Management, and instead he shall, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), appoint an Administrator with the direction to hold elections expeditiously in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is no such provision in the Scheme of Administration he shall appoint an Authorized Controller who shall expeditiously hold elections to the Committee of Management and shall manage the affairs of the institution until a lawfully elected committee of management is available for taking over the management."

13. It is evident that before the Full Bench, the

second question referred and decided was whether the

Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a

dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the Act can go into the

2026:UHC:794-DB

question of validity of the elections. While answering the

said question, it was held that he could examine the validity

of the election, prima facie, in deciding the actual control

over the affairs of the institution.

14. Before the Full Bench, there was no controversy

as to the circumstances, in which, the dispute could be

examined under Section 16-A(7) of the Act and whether,

even in absence of any dispute between parallel

committees, the Regional Deputy Director of Education

would have jurisdiction or power to examine the validity of

the elections.

15. Thus, we find substance in the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellant that the issue which was

involved in the writ petition as to whether the second

respondent was having any power to constitute a

committee to examine the complaint regarding validity of

election is not covered by the law laid down by the Full

Bench.

16. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has submitted

that, although, initially on basis of the first complaint dated

05.04.2025, the second respondent vide order 09.04.2025

constituted a committee to examine the allegation

regarding the validity of the election of the appellant-

2026:UHC:794-DB

Committee of Management and the order of approval of the

said election, but the second complaint dated 26.06.2025

was in relation to abuse of managerial powers by the

appellant- Committee of Management and the constitution

of the committee by order dated 27.06.2025 in reference to

the said complaint would not be in the realm of examining

the election dispute, but abuse of managerial powers. He

submits that under Section 34 of the Uttarakhand School

Education Act, 2006, the Director has been invested with

power to inspect any recognized institution and direct the

management to remove the deficiencies and in case, he

feels satisfied that there is abuse of managerial powers or

any mismanagement, he is further conferred with power to

issue show-cause notice to the Committee of Management

and after seeking its response, refer the matter to the State

Government for supersession of the Committee of

Management. He submits that since the second complaint

was for the suspension of managerial power of the

Committee of Management on allegations of

mismanagement and fraudulent exercise of managerial

powers, the order of the second respondent dated

27.06.2025, constituting a committee to examine the

complaint, cannot be questioned in any manner.

17. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 also takes

2026:UHC:794-DB

the same stand. He fairly states that he has no objection in

case the first order dated 09.05.2025, constituting a

committee on basis of complaint dated 05.04.2025 is set-

aside, but the second order dated 27.06.2025 in respect of

the complaint dated 26.06.2025, is maintained.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant also could not

show to us that the order of respondent no.2 dated

27.06.2025 suffers from any inherent lack of jurisdiction, as

undoubtedly, he has power of supervision over the affairs of

the management under Section 34 of the Act and to ensure

removal of defects and upon failure, to recommend for

supersession of the Committee of Management and

appointment of an Authorized Controller by the State

Government.

19. Consequently, the second order dated

27.06.2025 assailed in the writ petition was perfectly valid

and was rightly not interfered with by the learned Single

Judge. However, in view of the legal position noted above

and the concession made by learned Chief Standing Counsel

and learned counsel for respondent no.5, the first order

dated 09.04.2025, constituting a committee to examine the

election dispute in respect of the allegations made by

respondent no.5 in his complaint dated 05.04.2025, is set-

aside. This would however be without prejudice to the legal

2026:UHC:794-DB

remedies available to respondent no.5 to raise election

dispute before appropriate forum, in which event, no

observation made in the instant order would influence the

decision of the Competent Authority.

20. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. The

order of the learned Single Judge shall stand set-aside to

the extent stated above.

21. It is desirable that the inquiry as has been

constituted in pursuance of the order dated 27.06.2025 is

concluded expeditiously and respondent no.2 takes further

action in the matter as per law expeditiously preferably

within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the

instant order.

22. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed

of.

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dated: 11th February, 2026 NISHANT NISHANT

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b

KUMAR 7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055C FD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2026.02.13 16:12:10 +05'30'