Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M ARYA KANYA PATHSHALA INTER COLLEGE & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THROUGH THE SECRETARY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College & Another v. State Of U.P. Through The Secretary & Others - WRIT - C No. 17172 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 6678 (12 April 2007)

 

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

(Judgment reserved on 09.04.2007)

(Judgment delivered on 12.04.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17172 of 2007

Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.5, who appeared through caveat, stated that he did not propose to file any counter affidavit.

Petitioners on the one hand and respondents No.4 & 5 on the other hand are rival claimants to the Management of Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Kalpi, Jalaun. Serious dispute between the two groups started after insertion of a clause in the bye laws of the society providing that respondent no.5-Akhil Jaitley would be life time Secretary/Manager. The validity of the said clause is said to be sub-judice in a pending suit, in which temporary injunction order is also stated to be continuing.

Learned counsel for both the parties categorically stated that Executive Body of the society and Committee of Management of the College is same with the only difference that some of the members of teaching staff are also ex-officio members of Committee of Management.

In this writ petition absolutely no decision on any of the above contentious issues or correctness of the points, on which there is consensus among both the parties, is required to be given, as it is not the scope of this writ petition.

Petitioners claimed that the election of Executive Body/Committee of Management took place on 01.06.2006, in which petitioner No.2 was elected as Manager and papers of the said election were forwarded to the D.I.O.S. and Regional Level Committee, constituted under G.O. dated 19.12.2000, approved the signatures of petitioner No.2 as manager on 19.06.2000 and were attested on 20.06.2006. The further case of the petitioners is that on 14.08.2006 respondents No.4 & 5 asserted that they had also held elections on 04.06.2006, in which respondent no.5 was elected as Secretary and respondent No.4 as President. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 & 5 has contended that much before 19.06.2006 papers, pertaining to elections held by the respondents, had been sent to the Regional Committee. This assertion is very seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners until 19.06.2006, no papers regarding rival election were before the Regional Committee.

On the basis of the claim made by contesting respondents, Regional Committee proposed to decide the dispute under Section 16-A(7) of Intermediate Education Act. Thereafter, writ petition was filed in this Court being writ petition No.3970 of 2007, which was finally disposed of on 12.02.2007, copy of the judgment is Annexure-17 to the writ petition. Certain directions were given in the said judgment. Petitioners were required to file their objections, respondents No.4 & 5 were directed to file their reply, both the parties were directed to appear before Joint Director, Secondary Education, Jhansi on 12.03.2007. Joint Director was directed first to hear the preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction and decide the same by reasoned order. In the end, it was directed after decision on the preliminary objection, the case shall be decided on merit. In pursuance of the said order, after exchange of objections and counter objections, Joint Director decide the preliminary objections through order dated 17.03.2007. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. Through the said order, it was held that there was a dispute among rival claimants to the Management of College in question which required decision. The hearing on merit is yet to take place before Joint Director.

The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that until 19/20 June 2007, there was no claim of any rival election by the contesting respondents before Joint Director, hence signatures of petitioner No.2 as Manager were attested and thereafter no such dispute can be raised under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act.

I do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. Prior to the G.O. dated 19.12.2000, there was no specific provision for attestation of signatures of Manager of Committee of Management of a school or college. However, there were several authorities of this Court, which had held that as for discharging his functions in respect of recognised and aided schools and colleges under U.P. Intermediate Education Act and U.P. Payment of Salary Act, 1971, D.I.O.S. had to deal with the Committee of Management through Manager, hence it was essential for D.I.O.S. to recognise someone as valid Manager and attest his signatures as such. What was implicit earlier has been made explicit by G.O. dated 19.12.2000. The said G.O. has introduced two changes. The first is that the power, to decide the dispute of rival Committees of Management conferred upon Regional Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, has been conferred upon Regional Level Committee consisting of Joint Director of Education, Regional Director of Education and D.I.O.S. concerned. The second change is that the same Regional Committee has been empowered and obliged to attest the signatures of Managers.

There is absolutely nothing in the aforesaid G.O. or Section 16-A(7) of the Act to justify the inference that once signatures of an allegedly valid Manager have been attested, Regional Committee ceases to have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute of Management under Section 16A(7) of the Act.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Joint Director of Education Jhansi/Regional Committee is directed to decide the matter on merit either on the next date fixed or immediately thereafter.

It is made abundantly clear that in this writ petition, no opinion has been expressed regarding rival contentions on merit except that of jurisdiction. Each and every question shall be independently decided on the basis of evidence brought on record.

Date:12.04.2007

NLY


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.