[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Committee Of Management Rmpp vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 January, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:62
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition No. 2245 of 2025 (MS)
Committee of Management RMPP --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates: Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate with Ms. Sukhwani Singh,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the respondent through video conferencing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. Committee of Management of a Government aided
Intermediate College in District Haridwar, has filed this
writ petition, challenging the orders dated 9th April 2025
and 27th June 2025, passed by Director, Secondary
Education, Uttarakhand.
2. By the first order dated 9th April 2025, a three
member enquiry committee, headed by Regional
Additional Director of Education, Pauri, was constituted.
By the subsequent order dated 27th June 2025, another
three member committee was constituted to look into the
allegations made in the representation whereby request
was made to suspend the administrative powers of the
management committee, till the issue of fake election is
decided.
3. It transpires that respondent No. 5, who was life
member of the society, which is running the college, filed
appeal against approval granted to the election of
committee of management by the Regional Additional
Director of Education, Pauri vide order dated 28th
2026:UHC:62
January 2025. The said appeal was filed before Director,
Secondary Education.
4. In the appeal, it was alleged that the then Regional
Director of Education, in collusion with person claiming to
have been elected unopposed as Manager of the
institution in question, granted approval to the election in
last days of his service career. After filing of appeal,
Director, School Education constituted a three member
enquiry committee to look into the allegation that the
approval to fake election was granted in improper and
hasty manner by the Regional Additional Director of
Education.
5. During pendency of appeal, another complaint was
made by respondent No. 5 to Director, School Education
that the person, who claim to be elected as Manager of
the college in question, is proceeding to hold selection for
appointment against available vacancies on the post of
Lecturer and Assistant Teacher and the date of interview
is fixed as 1st July 2025 and, since the question of validity
of approval granted by Regional Additional Director of
Education is under consideration in appeal, therefore till
decision in pending appeal, administrative powers of the
management be suspended to prevent misuse of power
by the persons, who have grabbed the management by
deceitful means.
6. On this complaint, another three member committee
of enquiry was constituted by Director, School Education
vide order dated 27th February 2025. Petitioner
challenges these two orders passed by the Director,
School Education on the ground that in the absence of
any enabling provision in the Scheme of Administration, it
2026:UHC:62
was incompetent for the Director to constitute any
enquiry committee.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
dispute regarding validity of election of committee of
management can only be decided under Section 25 of
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not by the Director
of Education or the Regional Additional Director of
Education.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
order passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits on the representation of respondent No. 5 on 17th
March 2023, is legally unsustainable. He submits that
respondent No. 5 should have challenged the said order
before the appropriate forum, instead of approaching the
Director, School Education
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5
points out that his client approached the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits; however, his
complaint was held to be not maintainable, because the
intermediate college, run by the Society, is governed by
provisions of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 and
the regulations framed thereunder. The order passed by
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits is enclosed
as Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit filed by responded
No. 5.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 has
drawn attention of this Court to Scheme of Administration
of Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidhyalaya Inter College,
Gurukul Narson, District Haridwar, which is approved by
Regional Additional Director of Education, Pauri. Clause
2026:UHC:62
21(3) of Scheme of Administration provides that in case
of dispute regarding committee of management, when
two or more rival groups claim to be in effective control
over the management of the College, then such dispute
has to be referred for decision to the Regional Additional
Director of Education and the decision of the Regional
Additional Director, on such dispute, shall be final.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
clause 21(3) of Scheme of Administration refers to
Section 29(7) of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006,
and, in the present case, there is no rival group claiming
control over management, therefore clause 21(3) of
Scheme of Administration would not be attracted.
12. Mr Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 5 submits that there are more than 1600
members in the General Body of the society, which runs
Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidhyalaya Inter College,
and these persons reside in different village/towns of
Uttarakhand State, but they were not informed about the
impending election. He submits that election has to be
held as per the procedure laid down in the approved
Scheme of Administration; however, the election was
held in farcical manner in absolute disregard of the
provision contained in the Scheme of Administration.
13. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir submits that members of
General Body were not informed about the election, the
election program was notified in newspaper only on 8th
January 2025, process commenced the very next day
that is 9th January 2025 and the mandated information
was sent by post by election officer on 13th January
2025, after filing of nominations, as a result, members of
2026:UHC:62
the General Body of the society were prevented from
contesting the election.
14. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for
respondent No. 5 has drawn attention of this Court to
Annexure-10 to the writ petition, which is order dated
18th January 2025 passed by Chief Education Officer,
Haridwar. By the said order, Chief Education Officer
declined to grant approval to the election of Committee of
Management for certain reasons indicated in the order.
The Regional Additional Director of Education, Pauri;
however, interfered with the order of Chief Education
Officer and directed the Chief Education Officer vide order
dated 28th January 2025 to grant approval to the office
bearers, including Manager, who were allegedly elected
unopposed.
15. Clause 29 of Uttarakhand School Education Act 2006
deals with the Scheme of Administration for every
recognized educational institution. Section 29(5) provides
that Scheme of Administration shall be subject to
approval of the Director and no amendment or change
therein shall be made without approval of the Director.
16. Learned State Counsel points out that UP
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was governing the field
before enforcement of Uttarakhand School Education Act
2006, which also contained similar provision regarding
Scheme of Administration.
17. Learned State Counsel submits that a Full Bench of
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Committee
of Management, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Inter
College, Bansgaon and another Vs. Deputy Director
of Education, Gorakhpur and others, reported as
2026:UHC:62
2004 SCC OnLine All 1107; AIR 2005 All 101 has
considered and discussed the question, whether the
Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding a
dispute with regard to rival committees of management
claiming actual control the affairs of recognized /aided
educational institution, can go into the question of
validity of election.
18. In para 5 of the aforesaid judgment, Full Bench
formulated following three questions:
"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.
3. Whether in case the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that
the elections of both the rival committees are invalid, still he can decide
the question of actual control and recognise one or the other committee
of management."
19. The answer to the aforesaid questions, as given in
para 38 of the said judgment, is reproduced below:
38. Accordingly, we answer the questions as follows:
1. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding a dispute under
Section 16-A(7) of 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 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 recognise 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 Authorised
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.
20. Para 15, 17, 30, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the aforesaid
judgment are extracted below:
2026:UHC:62
15. In Committee of Management, Bhakt Vatshav Inter College v. Deputy
Director of Education, 1988 UPLBEC 402 : (1998 All LJ 1023), it was held
that the issue of actual control gets inevitably linked to the question about the
validity of the elections in deciding the dispute of control. In such
circumstances, it becomes necessary for the Deputy Director of Education, in
exercise of his powers under Section 16-A(7) to investigate the validity of the
elections, even after elections set up by the rival group, for in the scheme of
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act it is important for the Deputy Director of
Education, to decide whether any of the groups should be recognised as
constituting the Committee of Management so that the educational authorities
may deal with the group in the context.
17. We find that in a majority of cases, the Division Benches of this Court
took a view that while deciding the dispute with regard to the management
the Deputy Director of Education is incidentally required to go into the
validity of the elections. There are, however, some decisions, which have
struck a different note. In Sudhir Kumar Pathak v. Regional Deputy Director
of Education, Agra, 1985 All LJ 555, a Division Bench held that the Regional
Deputy Director is required to hold an enquiry and to decide who is found to
be in actual control of the affairs of the institution, and in doing that he is
required to follow the guidelines contained in the explanation. Section 16-
A(7) does not confer power on the Regional Deputy Director to act as an
election tribunal to investigate and decide the validity of the election of office
bearers. Instead it merely confers power on him to decide as to who should be
deemed to be in actual control of the affairs of the institution. A similar view
was taken by another Division Bench in Committee of Management, the
District of Schools, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1541 : (AIR 1995 All 38), in which it
was held that the enquiry before the Deputy Director of Education is limited
and is confined to determined as to who is in control of the affairs of the
institution. The Deputy Director of Education has to conduct this enquiry in a
summary manner. The decision under Section 16-A(7) as provided by the Act
itself is subject to the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction. The
recognition is not to settle the dispute between the rival claimants but only for
the purpose of the Act. The Regional Deputy Director of Education may find
the persons who are in actual control of the affairs of an institution, yet those
persons may not be recognised as constituting the Committee of
Management. By way of illustration, a situation may obtain where valid
elections have been held but the previous Committee of Management has not
allowed the newly elected persons to have actual control of affairs of
institution. In such a case even though persons of the previous Committee of
Management may be in actual control of the affairs of the authority, they may
not be recognised as constituting the Committee of Management. The bench
held that the institution exists for imparting education to the students and
their interest is supreme. The right of any person to manage the institution
cannot override the interest of a large body of students. Frequent management
disputes affect the smooth and ordinarily administration of institution. The
management may obstruct payment of salary. In such situation Section 16-
D(3)(iii) gives power to the State Government to appoint an authorised
controller. The Court while appointing the District Magistrate as authorised
controller, directed the parties to get their rights settled from the civil Court.
30. We find that there may be a variety of circumstances, in which the claims
are raised before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. It is also true
that the enquiry held by him is summary in nature and that this decision is
subject to the directions of the Court of competent jurisdiction. We, however,
cannot permit a situation where a group of persons may take over the control
over the funds, administration and income of its properties, without a claim
based on valid elections. The State Government spends a large amount of
2026:UHC:62
money towards grants to the educational institutions and thus there are
chances of unathorised persons taking over the control over the institution by
illegality, deceit and/or force. Such persons in our opinion, shall not be
allowed to deal with the Government funds. The Regional Deputy Director of
Education, therefore, in holding the enquiry about the actual control of the
affairs under Section 16-A(7) is hence required to go into the validity of the
elections incidentally, and to find out whether the persons claiming control
have been validly elected.
34. Control is a comprehensive term. Ordinarily it means the powers to
govern, dominate, direct and supervise in some respect the conduct of another,
the extent and degree of dominion depending upon the circumstances of the
particular case. Where the enquiry is with regard to 'actual control' and the
statute prescribes the method of the enquiry and the factors to be considered in
determination of the dispute, the authority vested with the powers to decide
the question must confine its powers to the relevant factors, keeping in view
the object and purpose of such determination. We find that the purpose of
determination under Section 16-A(7), is to find out as to who, prima facie, is
entitled to manage and administer the education institution. The 'Scheme of
Administration' provides for the procedure for constituting the Committee of
Management by periodical elections. It also provides for qualification and
disqualification of the members and office bearers and the terms of the office
and the procedure to call and to conduct the meetings. In our view, the Deputy
Director of Education in such matter must investigate about the validity of the
election of the office bearers. This enquiry, however, is to be summary in
nature and is subject to the final decision of the Court of competent
jurisdiction.
35. The third and last question posed before us is that where the Deputy
Director of Education finds that the elections of both rival Committees are
invalid, is he still required to proceed to decide the question of actual control,
and to recognise one or other Committee of Management. We find that where
the Committee of Management has not been lawfully constituted, the Director
of Education has powers under Section 16-D, to recommend to the State
Government to appoint an authorised controller in the institution. In Sheoraj
Singh v. Deputy Director of Education Meerut Region, Meerut, 1995 (Supp)
(4) SCC 78, the Supreme Court disapproved the interference of the High
Court in the findings of the Deputy Director of Education that neither of two
factions was in effective control of the institution, and directing the holding of
fresh elections.
36. The scheme of the Act provides for management of the educational
institution by validily elected Committee of Management, in terms of the
Scheme of Administration under Section 16-A, which under Section 16-CC is
not to be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the Third Schedule. The
Committee of Management exercises important statutory functions under the
Act and the U.P. Act of 1971. It has been given powers to make ad hoc
appointments of Class III posts, determination of seniority, notification of
vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools, preparation and submission of
salary bills etc.
37. It is also entrusted with the Government funds, for the purposes of
maintenance and payment of salaries. Where the persons are not found to be
validly elected office-bearers, they cannot be allowed to manage and
administer the institution only on the ground that they are in actual physical
control over the affairs of the institution. In the circumstances, we hold that
2026:UHC:62
where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the elections of
both the rival committees are invalid, he is no required to decide the question
of actual control, and to recognise one or the other committee. In such
circumstances, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment
of an Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), the Dy. Director (or Jt. Director, as
the case may be) may appoint an Administrator with direction to hold
elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is
no such provision he may appoint an Authorised Controller, who shall
expeditiously hold elections and manage the affairs of the institution until a
lawfully elected Committee of Management is available for taking over the
management."
21. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a
judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court, for
contending that election of office bearers of a society can
only be challenged under Section 25 of Societies
Registration Act.
22. Learned State Counsel, as well as learned counsel
for respondent, however, submit that respondent No. 5
has challenged the order of approval passed by Regional
Additional Director of Education. They submit that the
question of validity of approval order, passed by Regional
Additional Director of Education, cannot be gone into
under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, as the
approval to election is granted under the provisions of
Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006. They submit
that order passed by Regional Additional Director would
be appealable only before Director of Education, who is
the highest authority in Education Department, and not
before Deputy Registrar, who has nothing to do with
approval to the election.
23. This Court finds substance in the submission made
by learned counsel for the respondents.
24. Every educational institution recognized by
Uttarakhand Board of School Education, has to be
managed in accordance with the Scheme of
2026:UHC:62
Administration framed in accordance with the provisions
of Uttarakhand School Education Act 2006. The Scheme
of Administration contains elaborate procedure for
holding election to committee of management. The Chief
Education Officer is the authority competent to grant
approval to the election of committee of management. In
the present case, Chief Education Officer refused
approval for reasons indicated in the order dated 18th
January 2025. The Regional Additional Director of
Education, Pauri, however, interfered with the order
passed by Chief Education Officer and directed for
granting approval to the newly elected office bearers.
25. Respondent No. 5 in his appeal to the Director
against the order passed by Regional Additional Director
of Education, raised various issues and also alleged that
the incumbent Regional Additional Director was due to
retire on 31st January 2025 and three days before his
retirement, he passed the order for granting approval to
the election, in collusion with the persons who claim to be
elected unopposed.
26. The issues raised by respondent No. 5 in his appeal,
cannot be considered by the Prescribed Authority under
Section 25 of Societies Registration Act or by the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. Since approval to
election of a committee of management is granted by the
authorities of Education Department, therefore the
authorities of Education Department alone can look into
the question of validity or otherwise, of the approval
granted by the competent authority. An authority
appointed under Societies Registration Act, 1860, can not
sit in appeal over the approval order passed by an
2026:UHC:62
authority appointed under Uttarakhand School Education
Act.
27. Even otherwise also, by impugned orders, Director,
School Education has simply constituted three member
enquiry committees to examine the issues raised by
respondent No. 5. No prejudice or legal injury is caused
to the petitioner by constitution of committee. Thus
viewed, the writ petition is premature.
28. Admittedly, allegations made by respondent No. 5 in
his appeal/representation are serious in nature. No
recognized educational institution, much less a
government aided intermediate college, can be permitted
to be run by a management which is not validly elected
as per the approved Scheme of Administration. State
spends huge amount of money in paying salary and other
monetary benefits, including retiral benefits, to teaching
and non-teaching staff in government aided educational
institutions and there is a general complaint that
appointments in government aided educational
institutions are made by committee of management for
considerations other than the merit.
29. Public interest demands that government aided
educational institutions are run by management validly
elected as per approved Scheme of Administration, after
following the prescribed procedure, to ensure that
management of such institutions is not hijacked by
unscrupulous persons for advancing their personal
interest.
30. Full Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the
case of Committee of Management, Pandit Jawaharlal
2026:UHC:62
Nehru Inter College (supra) has also expressed its
concern in para 17 and 30, which is extracted above.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court do not
find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by
Director, Secondary Education. Appeal against order of
approval passed by Additional Director of Education can
be filed only before a superior authority in Education
Department. Thus, the contention that only Deputy
Registrar is competent to decide the question of validity
of election and Director is not competent to deal with the
matter, cannot be accepted.
32. The issue raised by respondent No. 5 in his appeal is
regarding validity of approval and not validity of election.
Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 02.01.2026
Mahinder
MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43
D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.01.05 19:49:59 +05'30'
