Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAI SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. DEPTT. OF SECONDARY EDU. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajai Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Edu. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 51083 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 8277 (25 April 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

COURT No.25

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.51083 of 2003.

Ajai Singh Petitioner.

Versus

State of U.P. and others. Respondents.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th October, 2003 passed by the Joint Director of Education 12th Region, Moradabad, respondent no.3 by which the election held on 9.6.2002 has been recognized.

Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows.

Rishikul Inter College, Moradabad is a duly recognized, privately managed, Government aided educational institution. The college is run by duly registered Society known as Gopal Teerth Rishikul Vidya Bhawan Association, Moradabad. It appears that in the year, 1996, authorized controller was managing the affairs of the Society. He has enrolled 20 new members on 21.6.1996. A resolution was passed rejecting the membership of new members on the ground that authorized controller has no jurisdiction to enroll such members. Thereafter, on 3rd July, 1996, authorized controller passed an order and rejected the membership. Subsequently, on 26th May, 2002, election programme was published. As per the election programme, 6.6.2002 was the date fixed for filing of nomination papers and 9.6.202 was fixed for election. On the complaint, the District Inspector of Schools passed order on 5.6.2002 and suspended the election. The petitioner claimed that due to the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 5.6.2002 suspending the election, they could not file the nomination papers. On 7.6.2002, Deputy Director of Education passed an order and directed to hold the election as per Schedule. In view of the order passed by the Deputy Director, the District Inspector of Schools has stayed its earlier order vide order dated 7.6.2002. Respondent no.5 claimed that the election was held on 9.6.2002. The election was challenged by the petitioner before the Joint Director of Education. Joint Director of Education vide order-dated 13.2.2002 set aside the election and directed to hold fresh election. The aforesaid order of the Joint Director of Education was challenged in writ petition no.11004 of 2003, which has been allowed and the order of the Joint Director of Education was set aside. In the aforesaid writ petition it has been held that the Joint Director of Education has no jurisdiction to decide the matter and it is Regional Committee who has jurisdictions to decide the issue. The Regional Committee by the impugned order dated 29.10.2003 headed by the Joint Director of Education, upheld the election-dated 9.6.2002 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Akram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the Committee, the petitioner submitted that on account of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 5.6.2000 suspending the election, the petitioner could not file the nomination paper and, thus, the right of the petitioner to file of nomination paper has been violated and the election held on 9.6.2002 without giving opportunity to the petitioner to file the nomination paper was illegal. It was further submitted that in the election held on 9.6.2002, 20 new members were permitted to participate in the election, while the Assistant Controller vide order dated 3.7.1996 has rejected the membership. He submitted that the Committee has decided the issue with regard to the membership but has not adjudicated the first issue, namely, that the petitioner was not provided opportunity to file the nomination paper.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that so far as the issue relating to the membership is concerned, the District Inspector of Schools has already passed the order on 5.7.1997 in which the membership of the new members have been recognized and the order of the District Inspector of Schools has become final. He further submitted that in a subsequent election held on 29.5.1997, new members have participated and the said election has been held valid and recognized on 5.7.1997. Thus, so far as the issue relating to the membership is concerned, that has become final.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned orders and other documents annexed along with the writ petition and counter affidavit.

So far as issue relating to the membership is concerned, in my view the same has become final and is not open to challenge. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 5.7.1997 has held the membership of new members as valid and newly inducted members have participated in the election held on 29.5.1997, the said election has been recognized and held valid and is not in dispute. Thus, the question with regard to the membership does not remain in dispute and has acquired the finality. However, coming to the first ground of challenge, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the Schedule of election, nomination paper was to be filed on 6.6.2002. The District Inspector of Schools has suspended the election on 5.6.2002. On 7.6.2002, Deputy Director of Education directed to hold the election as per Schedule. In this way, on 6.6.2002, the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 5.6.2002 was in operation as a result of which the election stood suspended and, therefore, there was no occasion to file the nomination paper on 6.6.2002. In case, if the Deputy Director has directed to hold the election, the date of filing the nomination should have been extended and allowed the parties to file the nomination after 6.6.2002 before the election to be held.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner was prevented in filing the nomination paper and the right of the petitioner to participate in the election has been violated. In this view of the matter, the election held on 9.6.2002 cannot be held valid and is being accordingly, set aside.  Assistant Controller is directed to hold the election afresh in accordance to the law within two months from today.

In the result, writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 20.10.2003 is set aside in part. The election held on 9.6.2002 is set aside and the Assistant Controller is directed to hold fresh election within a period of two months from today in accordance to the law.

Dated.25.04.2006.

VS.


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.