Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M ST. INDREW'S INTER COLLEGE & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M St. Indrew'S Inter College & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Director Of Education & Others - WRIT - C No. 437 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 4559 (27 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 437 of 2003

Committee of Management of St. Andrew's Inter College, Gorakhpur & another

versus

State of U.P. and others

AND

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30710 of 2003

Committee of Management of St. Andrew's Inter College, Gorakhpur & another

versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Both these writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action and hence they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. Pleadings in both the writ petitions have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are being decided at the admission stage itself. For convenience, the subsequent writ petition no. 30710 of 2003 shall be treated as the leading writ petition in which the facts relating to the case have been stated more comprehensively.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.437 of 2003 has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Respondent no.2, whereby an Authorized Controller has been appointed, with the direction to hold the elections of the Committee of Management within three months. A further prayer for a direction in the nature of Mandamus has been made for commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioners in the matter of administering and managing the affairs of the college. The second Writ Petition no. 30710 of 2003 has been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 29.5.2003 passed by the Regional Committee, Respondent no.2, granting recognition to the election of the Committee of Management held on 11.3.2003 and also for quashing the order dated 20.6.2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Respondent no.4, whereby the signatures of Respondent no.5 Ajay Singh has been attested as the Manager of the Committee of Management.

The facts as stated by the petitioners are that St. Andrew's Inter College, Gorakhpur is an aided minority institution for which the District Inspector of Schools had issued the requisite minority certificate. The college is governed by a Scheme of Administration, which had been duly approved by the Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur on 1.6.1966. The preamble of the Scheme of Administration mentions that the college was established for providing education, primarily to Christian children but also to others, irrespective of caste or creed, who voluntarily join the institution which imparts education on Christian basis and according to the faith, doctrine and practice of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon, or their successors. On 29.11.1970 the Church of North India (C.N.I.) at Nagpur came into existence after unification of six churches, which included the Church of India, Burma, Pakistan and Ceylon. According to the petitioner the Church of North India, being the successor of Church of India, Burma, Pakistan and Ceylon, came in control of the management of the colleges and Diocesan Education Board (D.E.B.), petitioner no.3, which is a registered society and has been governing all the educational institutions of the Church of North India (which includes St. Andrews Inter College, Gorakhpur) ever since the unification of the Churches in 1970.

The Church of North India has various dioceses. Schedule I of the "Organization and Administration of the Church of North India" describes the territorial jurisdiction of the dioceses of Church of North India. According to the said schedule, district Gorakhpur falls within the diocese of Lucknow, with Headquarter at Allahabad. Thus, according to the petitioners, Lucknow Diocese Trust Association, petitioner no.4, which is a body registered under the Companies Act, is the body having direct control over the management and supervision of the properties and institutions coming under the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow diocese of the Church of North India.

Under the definition clause I(h) of the Scheme of Administration, ''society' is defined to mean the Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (L.D.T.A.). Under sub-clause  (j)  ''Diocese' is defined to mean the area under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lucknow. Under sub-clause (m) ''L.D.T.A.' is defined to mean the Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association, a body registered under the Companies Act, vested with the authority for holding administration and control of the properties of the Lucknow Diocesan Council. Sub-clause (n) defines ''D.E.B.' to mean the Diocesan Education Board, a body vested with authority to control and manage the Educational institutions under the Lucknow Diocesan Council. Under sub-clause (s) ''C.I.P.B.C.' is defined to mean the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon, a province of the World Wide Anglican Commission.

Clause IV of the Scheme of Administration authorizes the Committee of Management to manage and conduct the affairs of the institutions, subject to the control of the L.D.T.A. and D.E.B.  Clause V of the Scheme of Administration gives the constitution of the Committee of Management, which is to consist of 16 members, out of whom 9 members are ex officio members and 4 are nominated members. The remaining 3 members are to be co-opted by the above, from amongst the categories mentioned, out of which at least one of them has to be a non-Christian. There is no general body of the institution and the Committee of Management is thus not to be elected by any general body, but has its members, who are either ex officio, nominated or co-opted and are all to serve in honorary capacity. The Bishop of Lucknow is the ex officio President of the Committee of Management. The office bearers, i.e. Vice President and the Assistant Manager, are to be elected from amongst the members of the Committee. The Manager is also to be elected from amongst members of the Committee itself and recommended to the Bishop for appointment through D.E.B., with the right being vested in the Bishop to even appoint someone else from amongst the members of the Committee; meaning thereby that the final authority to appoint the Manager is the Bishop, without whose approval the appointment of Manager cannot be made. Clause VII of the Scheme of Administration provides that the term of office bearers and members, other than ex officio members of the Committee, shall be 3 years from the date they are elected or nominated, with the proviso that the term of every office bearer shall be deemed to continue till his successor is elected or nominated.  Clause XIX of the Scheme of Administration relates to the decision of dispute relating to membership and offices, which reads as under:-

"XIX. Decision of Dispute Relating to Membership and Offices:

Any dispute as to whether a person has been duly chosen to be a member or office bearer shall be referred to the President whose decision thereon shall be final. Provided that when the dispute relates to the office of the President, the same shall be referred to the Dy. Director of Education, whose decision thereon shall be final. The President or the Dy. Director of Education, as the case may be, may order as to who shall during the pendency of the dispute, exercise and discharge the powers and functions appertaining to the office to which the dispute relates."

Clause XX of the Scheme of Administration relates to the emergency provision, which reads as under:-

"XX. Emergency Provision.

(I) In case of grave and sudden emergency the Bishop of the Diocese (President) shall assume to himself all powers of the Committee of Management for a period not exceeding three months, within which the matter relating to the emergency shall be resolved by him or laid before the Diocesan Education Board, which, if necessary, shall take over the powers of the Committee for such period as the emergency may require or take other action which may be proper.

(II) When the State Government is of opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it impossible to carry on properly the administration of the school in the normal manner, it may appoint an Administrator. Provided that no such administrator shall be appointed except -

(a) on the recommendation of the committee, or

(b) on the recommendation of the Director of Education, and after allowing the President an opportunity to submit a written explanation against the said recommendation.

(c) Upon such appointment being made, the Committee and all the office bearers shall stand suspended and all their powers and functions shall rest in the administrator except that he will not have the authority to take loan for or on behalf of the Society or institution or the transfer any immovable property thereof.

(d) The Administrator may appoint one or more persons to assist him in the exercise and discharge of his powers and functions.

(e) (i) He may dissolve and remove the Committee and all the office bearers and have fresh Committee and office bearers chosen in accordance with this Scheme, notwithstanding the fact that their term may not have expired the members and the office bearers so chosen shall be deemed to have been chosen in the usual course.

(ii) The Administrator shall report to the State Government the constitution of the new committee and thereupon the State Government shall remove the Administrator from such date as may be fixed by it.

(f) Any appointment made under Clause (II) above shall not continue for a period exceeding two years, except when any dispute relating to the right of Management is pending in the court of competent jurisdiction, in which case the Administrator shall continue till the court orders otherwise or it is finally decided.

(g) The State Government may remove any Administrator appointed by it or substitute another in his place, provided that the total term of all such Administrators will not exceed the limit given in sub clause (f).

(h) When an Administrator is removed or his term expires without any successor having been appointed, the Committee shall start functioning again."

The other facts relevant for the purposes of decision of these writ petitions are that on 12.2.1990, one Mr. Gabriel Daud, Petitioner no.2, was appointed as the Manager for the period 12.2.1990 to 30.6.1992. The District Inspector of Schools duly attested his signatures on 1.7.1991. Thereafter on 15.1.1993 fresh elections of the office bearers of the Committee of Management were held in which Mr. Gabriel Daud was again unanimously elected as the Manager. Due intimation of such election was given to the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 15.1.1993 itself. Thereafter again on 8.8.1997 the election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management was held in which Mr. Gabriel Daud was again re-elected as the Manager, the intimation of which was sent to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 3.9.1997. The next elections of the office bearers was held on 10.3.2000 in which once again Mr. Gabriel Daud was unanimously elected as Manager and intimation of the same was given to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 11.3.2000. There was no dispute with regard to the appointment/election of Manager of the college till this stage and the elected manager continued to manage the affairs of the college and operate its accounts.

The Principal of the college was due to retire on 30.6.2002. Prior to the said date, the Committee of Management of the college sought permission from the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur for filling up the post of Principal, which permission was granted on 28.5.2002. The petitioners contend that by grant of such permission, the Joint Director of Education also recognized the authority of the Committee of Management, which had sought the permission. However, after such permission was granted, an advertisement was published in the local newspaper on 31.5.2002, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Principal of the college, for which a request was made to the Deputy Director of Education of the region to provide a panel of experts, which was however not provided and in the meanwhile one Sri R.B.Singh was appointed as the officiating Principal of the college.

In the meantime, one Sri Ajai Singh, Respondent no.6, (who, according to the petitioners, was a rank outsider) filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 26479 of 2002, raising certain management disputes and prayed for quashing of the permission granted by the Joint Director of Education on 28.5.2002 for filling up the post of Principal. One Anis E. John also filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30355 of 2002 claiming that, being the senior-most teacher, he should be appointed as the officiating principal of the college. In the aforesaid writ petition no. 30355 of 2002, an interim order was passed on 8.8.2002 whereby it was provided that "Joint Director of Education is directed to see the pending matter regarding management dispute and seniority dispute in accordance with law". The said Ajai Singh thereafter, on 17.9.2002, made a representation to the Joint Director of Education, to which the petitioners filed their objections on 11.10.2002.

Pursuant to the order dated 8.8.2002 passed by this Court in writ petition no. 30355 of 2002 directing the Joint Director of Education to see the pending matters regarding management and seniority dispute, the Joint Director of Education,  Respondent no.2, passed an order dated 20.12.2002 holding that after 1990, no elections of the Committee of Management of the college were held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and thus under Clause XIX of the Scheme of Administration, he appointed an Authorized Controller (who was the Principal of Government Jubilee Inter College, Gorakhpur) and a direction was given to him that the election of the Committee of Management be held, in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, within three months. It is this order dated 20.12.2002 which is under challenge in writ petition no. 437 of 2003.

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Joint Director of Education dated 20.12.2002, the Authorized Controller, on 11.3.2003, held the elections for the constitution of the Committee of Management in the premises of Government Jubilee Inter College, Gorakhpur, in which the Respondent no. 6 Ajai Singh was elected as the Manager. On 24.3.2003 a representation was made by the petitioners to the Joint Director of Education praying for not to recognize the newly elected Committee of Management. On 13.5.2003 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order of single operation under section 5 of the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971, which is still in operation. Then on 29.5.2003, the Regional Committee, Respondent no.2, granted recognition to the elections held on 11.3.2003. Consequently the District Inspector of Schools, by his order dated 20.6.2003, attested the signatures of Sri Ajai Singh, Respondent no.6, as the Manager of the Committee of Management. It is the aforesaid two orders dated 29.5.2003 and 20.6.2003, which have been impugned in writ petition no. 30710 of 2003.

I have heard Sri A.D.Saunders, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions as well as Sri N.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, at length over several days.

The main issue to be considered in this case is as to whether an Authorized Controller/Administrator could have been appointed by the Joint Director of Education in the petitioner college which is a minority institution, specially keeping in view the Scheme of Administration of the institution and the provisions of Section 16-D(14) of the Act; and then if the Authorized Controller could have been appointed, whether he could decide as to which group should be called for election.

Before considering the above, I may first decide the preliminary objection raised by Sri Pandey that this writ petition would not be maintainable as the petitioners, including the Diocesan Education Board (D.E.B.) and the Lucknow Diocese Trust Association (L.D.T.A.), are bodies of the Church of North India (C.N.I.), and would have no locus standi to file this writ petition. According to Sri Pandey, it is the Anglican Church of India, which is the successor of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon, which alone has the right to manage the institutions and not the C.N.I.

Clause II (Preamble) of the Scheme of Administration of the college (Annexure-3 to writ petition) provides that the college shall impart education according to faith, doctrine and procedure of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon or its successor. As per the constitution of D.E.B. and its bye-laws (Annexure-24 to writ petition), after re-organization of the Churches in India, the C.N.I. was constituted on 29.11.1970 and the D.E.B., in association with Diocesans Council of Diocese of Lucknow of C.N.I., was to manage and control the 50 educational institutions named in the appendix to the bye-laws, which includes St. Andrew's Inter College, Gorakhpur at serial no.7 of the list. The said college was established in the 19th Century. After re-organization of the churches, undisputedly it was this D.E.B. which was in control of the management and affairs of the college. It was for the first time in the year 2002 that the respondents raised a dispute with regard to the management of the college. From the year 1970, when the C.N.I. was constituted, till 2002, for 32 years the D.E.B. was undisputedly in control of the management of the college. Letters have been issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury on 6.1.1997; 20.10.1999 and 19.9.2002 (Annexure-RA 1, 2 and 3 to Rejoinder Affidavit) from perusal of which it is clear that the Anglican Communion continues to recognize the Church of South India and Church of North India as the legitimate heirs of the Anglican properties in India and have inherited all such properties in India that once belonged to Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon and that no other body in India or any of their Bishop, other than those of Church of North India or the Church of South India  are recognized by the Anglican Communion. In the letter dated 19.9.2002 it has been categorically stated that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not recognize the existence of any Anglican Church of India. As such, keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the fact that for 32 years after the constitution of C.N.I. and its D.E.B., it is these bodies which have been in control of the affairs and management of the college, if any dispute with regard to the inheritance of the properties of the Anglican Communion is raised by the Anglican Church of India, the same can be raised and decided only in a regular suit and not by way of raising a dispute before the educational authorities. As such, the preliminary objection raised by Sri Pandey with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition is rejected and in my view, the D.E.B. and the L.D.T.A., constituted by the C.N.I., has a right to maintain this writ petition.

For deciding the main issue regarding the appointment of the Authorized Controller in the minority institution of the petitioner-college, the relevant provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short ''the Act') have to be first considered. Prior to the amendment brought out in the Act, section 16-D (5-A) provided for appointment of Authorized Controller in all institutions, including minority institutions. However, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Haji Islam Qureshi vs. Director of Education 1978 (4) A.L.R. 70 held that such statutory provision for appointment of Authorized Controller would not be applicable to minority institutions. Thereafter by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981, section 16-D of the Act was amended and 14 sub-sections were introduced. Sub-section (1) provides that the Director of Education may cause recognized institution to be inspected from time to time; and sub-section (2) provides that the Director of Education may direct a management to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. Sub-section (3) to (13) relates to various other powers of the Director of Education with regard to the management of the institution, including appointment of Authorized Controller. By sub-section (14) it was provided that "nothing contained in sub sections (3) to (13) shall apply to all institutions established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India". The institution in question is undisputedly a recognized minority institution. Thus, by the aforesaid amendment, the power of the appointment of Authorized Controller in a minority institution was taken away.

The order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education appointing the Authorized Controller is said to have been passed by virtue of the provisions of Clause XIX of the Scheme of Administration. A perusal of the said clause (which has been quoted above) would show that it does not empower the State or the educational authorities to appoint any Authorized Controller. Sri Pandey has, however, submitted that in the said order dated 20.12.2002, it has wrongly been mentioned that the Authorized Controller has been appointed under clause XIX, whereas it ought to been made under clause XX of the Scheme of Administration (which has also been quoted above), which relates to emergency provision. It is only under sub-clause (II) of clause XX of the Scheme of Administration that "when the State Government is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it impossible to carry on properly the administration of the school in the normal manner, it may appoint an Administrator"; but the same is also subject to the proviso that no Administrator shall be appointed except on the recommendation of the committee or on the recommendation of the Director of Education, but that too after allowing the President an opportunity to submit a written explanation against the said recommendation. Even presuming that the appointment of Authorized Controller has been done under clause XX of the Scheme of Administration, then too it has to be seen as to whether the conditions laid therein were followed, and that whether in view of the provisions of Section 16-D (14) of the Act, the same could have been done or not.

Sri Pandey has contended that even if there is no provision in the Scheme of Administration for appointment of Administrator or Authorized Controller, then too such appointment can be made in the interest of the minority institution. In support, he has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Committee of Management Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College vs. Deputy Director of Education 2005(1) UPLBEC 85 wherein it has been held that "Where a Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the election of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to question the actual control but recognize one or the other Committee of Management, and instead he shall, where the scheme of administration provides for appointment of 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 lawful elected Committee of Management is available for taking over management". In the said case the Full Bench was not dealing with the cases of minority institutions but with the case relating to majority institution where the provisions of sub-section (3) to (13) of section 16-D of the Act were applicable. In the present case, undisputedly St. Andrew's Inter College is a minority institution, where by virtue of section 16-D(14) of the Act, the provisions of sub-section (3) to (13), which relate to appointment of Authorized Controller, do not apply. Accordingly, the aforesaid law as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court cannot be made applicable to the present case. All other decisions in this regard, which have been relied upon by Sri Pandey, also relate to majority institutions and hence the same are not being referred to.

However, a Single Judge of this Court vide his Judgment dated 16.5.2005 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39158 of 2005 Committee of Management National Inter College vs. State of U.P., while dealing with a case of a minority institution, has held that since ".......the right of the management of a minority institution cannot be interfered by the authorities in view of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, it may be clarified that the Prabandh Sanchalak so appointed is only to act as an independent election officer for getting fresh elections of the Committee of Management held in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. Appointment of an election officer also termed as authorized controller under Clause-8 of the scheme of administration cannot be said to affect the right of the management of the institution nor the management of the institution is taken over because of the appointment of an independent election officer. ......... .........It is needless to point out that the election officer is appointed for the purposes of conducting the free and fair elections only and therefore this court has no room to doubt that the Prabandh Sanchalak appointed under the impugned order, would carry out the functions of the election officer only without interfering in the other administrative and financial affairs of the petitioner institution."

The aforesaid judgment of the Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. (462) of 2005 Committee of Management National Inter College & another vs. State of U.P. and others wherein it was held that "As regards the appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak for the purpose of overseeing election the point of the institution being a minority one was raised, we are of the opinion that where the overseeing process is not in itself administration or management of the institution but is directed more towards securing the appropriate management and administration of the institution itself by the minor members, the appointment of the overseer is not only not unconstitutional but required by the constitution for the smoother future function of the minority institution itself."

Sri Saunders, learned counsel for the petitioners, has, however, submitted that in the present case there is no rival Committee of Management nor is there any dispute with regard to there being any rival office bearers who are claiming to have been elected. The dispute is as to which body should be in control of the properties and affairs of the college. The respondents claim that it is the Anglican Church of India which would have the control of the properties, as well as management of the college in question. The Scheme of Administration of the college defines a ''society' to mean as the Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association and that the Diocesan Education Board is vested with the authority to control and manage the educational institutions under the Lucknow Diocesan Council. It is not the case of the respondents that Anglican Church of India has its own Diocesan Education Board or that it controls the Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association. They just claim to have inherited the properties of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon; although from 1970 to 2002, during which period there was no dispute over the management and control of the college, it was the petitioner Diocesan Education Board and Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association which were managing the institution. According to the petitioners, there is no general body of the institution and the Committee of Management consists of only ex officio, nominated or co-opted members, the election to be conducted is only of the office bearers from amongst the aforesaid ex officio, nominated or co-opted members. There being no dispute with regard to the elections of the office bearers from amongst the said Committee of Management, the question of control over the management of the college by the respondents does not arise, as they do not even claim themselves to be members of Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association or Diocesan Education Board which is to govern the college as per the Scheme of Administration, which had been duly recognized by the Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur on 1.6.1966. Undisputedly it is the approved Scheme of Administration, which is to govern the affairs of the college. Neither of the parties dispute the said position and the Joint Director of Education, by referring to clause XIX of the Scheme of Administration in the order dated 20.12.2002 for appointing the Administrator/Authorized Controller, also recognizes the said Scheme of Administration for the management of the affairs of the college.  

The actual dispute amongst the rival parties here is as to whether the Bishop of Lucknow of the Church of North India or the Anglican Church of India is to be the ex officio President of the college. The said dispute can certainly not be decided by the educational authorities, specially keeping in view the fact that the management has been in control of the Church of North India for over three decades, till the year 2002. If any such dispute is to be raised and decided, the same can, in my view, be done only in a regular civil suit and not by way of raising a dispute before the educational authorities.

It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that no such appointment of Authorized Controller could be made even under Clause XX of the Scheme of Administration as anything contrary to the Act in the Scheme of Administration would be ultra vires the Act as has been held by this Court in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Higher Secondary School vs. State of U.P. 1974 A.L.J.259. In the said case this Court has held that the scheme framed under section 16-A of the Act is in the nature of delegated or subordinate legislation, as the power to frame the Scheme of Administration is derived from the statutory provision contained in section 16-A of the Act. The Court further found that the provision contained in the Scheme of Administration in that case, which provided for appointment of administrator, was "inconsistent with and repugnant to the policy reflected by Section16-D of the Act and for that reason ultra vires". Similar facts are of the present case also.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, keeping in view the provisions of the Scheme of Administration of the institution, as well as the provisions of section 16-D(14) of the Act, no Authorized Controller of Administrator could have been appointed for managing the affairs of the institution in question. In the facts and circumstances of this case, when no Authorized Controller could have been appointed, the question as to which group or Committee of Management should have been called for elections, does not arise.

In view of the aforesaid, the prayers made in these writ petitions may now be considered. The prayer made in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 437 of 2003 is for quashing the order dated 20.12.2002 passed the Joint Director of Education whereby an Authorized Controller had been appointed to manage the affairs of the college, with a further direction to hold the elections of the Committee of Management within three months. As already held above, as per the Scheme of Administration and the provisions of the Act, no Authorized Controller could have been appointed in the minority institution of the petitioner for the purposes of managing the affairs of the said minority institution. As regards the holding of elections, since there is no general body of the institution and as per the Scheme of Administration, the Committee of Management comprises of only members who are either ex officio, nominated or co-opted, and in the absence of any other rival Committee of Management claiming that it has a parallel Diocesan Education Board or Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association which is to govern and manage the college as per the approved Scheme of Administration, the question of holding elections from amongst the members of the Committee of Management (who are ex officio; nominated or co-opted), does not arise. As such, in my view, the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Joint Director of Education deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, quashed.

As regards the prayer made in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30710 of 2003 which is for quashing the order dated 29.5.2003 passed by the Regional Committee granting recognition to the elections of the Committee of Management held on 11.3.2003 and also for quashing the consequential order dated 20.6.2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby the signatures of Respondent no. 5 Ajai Singh have been attested as Manager of the Committee of Management, in my view, since in the facts of the present case, the elections were held by the Authorized Controller by only inviting the group represented by the respondents and ignoring the claim of the petitioners, who were in control over the management and affairs of the college for over three decades up to the year 2002, the order of the Regional Committee dated 29.5.2003 granting recognition to the election dated 11.3.2003 deserves to be quashed. The Regional Committee has in fact gone to the extent of deciding the dispute as to whether it is the Church of North India or the Anglican Church of India which is to inherit the properties of Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon, which included the college in question. The educational authorities could not have done the same as it would require evidence to be adduced by the parties, which could only be done in a regular suit. As such in case if the parties so desire, they may get the issues decided in a regular civil suit. Besides the aforesaid reasons, even otherwise when the order dated 20.12.2002 appointing the Authorized Controller has been quashed, the order dated 29.5.2003 passed by the Regional Committee recognizing the elections got conducted by the Authorized Controller, as well as the consequential order dated 20.6.2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools are both liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed.

However, under the Emergency Provision of the duly approved Scheme of Administration provided for under the sub-clause (I) of Clause XX, in my view, till the dispute is resolved, the Bishop of the diocese of Lucknow shall assume to himself all the powers of the Committee of Management and make arrangements for the management and administration of the college as per the said clause and other provisions of the Scheme of Administration. Further, the order of single operation of the accounts of the college passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 13.5.2003 under section 5 of the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 shall remain in force till the dispute is finally resolved in terms of the Scheme of Administration of the institution.

In the result, subject to the directions given hereinabove, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed.

The office is directed to place the original Judgment in the records of writ petition no. 30710 of 2003 and a Photostat copy of the same be placed on the records of writ petition no. 437 of 2003.

Dt/- February  27, 2006

dps


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.