Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M ADARSH JANTA MADHYAMIK VID. THRU' MANAGER & ANOTHER versus DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Adarsh Janta Madhyamik Vid. Thru' Manager & Another v. District Basic Education Officer & Another - WRIT - C No. 54977 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 1407 (26 May 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

The petitioner- alleged Committee of Management of Adarsh Janta MadhyamikVidyalaya Jagdishpur Handia Allahabad has instituted this petition seeking direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad- respondent no. 1 to recognize it and to attest the signatures of Sri Ram Deo son of Baldeo, alleged Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution- respondent no. 2.  It is further prayed that a mandamus be also issued directing the respondents to produce the order of single operation, if any, and to quash the sa

The facts of the case are that Adarsh Janta Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jagdishpur Handia Allahabad is a recognized and aided Junior High School.  It receives grant-in-aid by the State Government and is governed by the provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 as well as U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978.  The Committee of Management of the institution, in question, is constituted from amongst the members of the Society, which is duly recognized by Basic Shiksha Adhikari.

It is alleged that there is approved Scheme of Administration of the institution and the Committee of Management is constituted from amongst the members of the Society for a period of 3 years.

Earlier, there arose a dispute about election of Committee of Management in 1983-84 between two rival groups and the petitioner's Committee of Management was declared as the valid one vide order dated 13.8.1984 passed by theBasic Shiksha Adhikari, which was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10505 of 1994- Committee of Management through Sri Sukkhu Ram Yadav v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari which was dismissed.  It is further alleged that during the pendency of the said writ petition, Sri Ram Deo was thrice elected as Manager and the institution, in question, remained under his effective control.  After dismissal of the abovementioned writ petition on 16.10.1995, the Committee of Management of Sri Ramdeo was constituted in 1995, which was duly approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Again, elections were held on 12.5.1998 and Sri Ramdeo was re-elected. On expiry of the term in 2001, elections were held on 27.5.2001 and Sri Ram Deo was again elected as Manager.  However, the alleged order of single operation was passed without any rhyme or reason and hence this petition.

Despite sufficient opportunities, no counter affidavit has been filed.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that on the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management on 27.5.2004, a fresh election was held on 30.5.2004 and Sri Ram Deo was again elected as Manager.  Papers for attestation of his signatures were sent as far back as on 4.6.2004 to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari but till now, no action has been taken.  He urged that the petitioners' Committee of Management being validly constituted Committee, the order of single operation deserves to be quashed.

Standing counsel could not rebut the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner nor any counter affidavit has been filed.  In the absence of any counter affidavit, the averments made in the writ petition have to be believed.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of single operation is quashed.  The respondent no. 2 is directed to forthwith attest signatures of petitioner no. 2.  No order as to costs.

Dated 26.5.2005

kkb


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.