High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Nirmala Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1058 of 2006  RD-AH 16154 (15 September 2006)
Chief Justice's Court
Special Appeal No. 1058 of 2006
Smt. Nirmala Singh vs. State of U.P. and others
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. R.N. Singh (Sr. Adv.),
Mr. G.K. Singh & V.K. Singh
Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.)
Mr. Lokendra Kumar &
Chief Standing Counsel
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,CJ
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J
The appeal from the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on the 4th of September, 2006 is summarily taken up and disposed of.
By that order his Lordship has stayed the operation of an order dated 11.8.2006 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti.
The order had two main parts. The first part of the order mentions that the elections are to be conducted by an independent body, namely the D.I.
In the second part of the order, there is a stay of further acting as Manager passed against Mrs. Luxmi Srivastava who had been acting as Manager of the institution until then.
The case of the respondent before us is that on the 3rd of July, 2004, a resolution was passed removing Mrs. Nirmala Singh from the post of Manager and substituting Mrs. Srivastava in her place.
In that resolution which has come before us, it was submitted that there was no credible information given as to who called the meeting. Since the last meeting had been held on the 9th of December, 2001, somebody would have to be shown to be authorised to call the meeting for removing Mrs. Singh; no such fact was forthcoming. The second point was that no notice was given to Mrs. Singh under registered post as is required by the scheme; only a communication under certificate of posting was relied upon and that was not reliable.
Thirdly, the resolution attempted merely a substitution without there being any serious or even any allegation at all against Mrs. Singh.
On this basis, the said removal was challenged. As a consequence, it was submitted that the fresh elections held by the respondent on the 16th of January, 2005 would have to fall to the ground as it was held by Mrs. Srivastava who had been wrongly attempted to be substituted in the aforesaid meeting.
It seems that in the proceedings of the body in question, the Manager has, as usual taken a leading role and the elections are to be held under the auspices of the Manager if there is a valid one elected and functioning at the material time.
Mrs. Srivastava had obtained approval as Manager on the 4th of September, 2004 and her signature was also attested but it was kept in abeyance on and from the 11th of October, 2004.
Pursuant to directions given by Court, the order which has been stayed by the first Court was passed. One of the main reasons given in that order is that no independent supervisor had been appointed to supervise the purported elections of 16.1.2005. That the elections were conducted by Mrs. Srivastava also was well taken note of in the said order.
In that view of the matter, the said order passed by the Joint Director of Education appears to be the perfectly sound and proper manner of proceeding at present. The election date had been notified on the 26th of August, 2006 as the 10th of September and the Assistant D.I. had also been nominated as the observer. The advertisements in papers have not been brought before us but hereafter, the 10th of September having come and gone, as and when elections are held all persons concerned should see to it that appropriate advertisements are issued so that all eligible persons are notified of the election date and they can participate therein.
We find that on the basis of the said order neither Mrs. Srivastava nor Mrs. Singh can conduct the elections; it is between them that the choice will perhaps be made.
As such, it is fair and proper that the D.I. conduct the elections on the basis of the Joint Direction of Education's order. It is advisable that the D.I. supervise and conduct the elections himself. On these grounds, we are of the respectful opinion that the impugned order dated the 4th of September, 2006 should be set aside; it is hereby set aside. Perhaps this makes the writ petition either infructuous or out dated; however, our order and observations are all without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in further and future proceedings.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.