High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Pt. Shiv Govind Misra Arya Nagar Inter College And Anr. v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 64203 of 2006  RD-AH 20035 (27 November 2006)
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for Respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Prakash Padia for Respondent no.4. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
The admitted facts are that by an order dated 17.10.1988 passed by the State Government, the District Inspector of Schools was appointed as the authorized controller of the Committee of Management in question. The rival claimants contend that they had held their respective elections of the Committee of Management in the year 1999 but the same were never recognized. However, it is claimed by Respondent no.4 that on 13.7.2006 they had forwarded the papers of certain election got held by them on 4.9.2005, which was nearly ten months earlier, and by the impugned order dated 6.10.2006 the Joint Director of Education has accepted the said elections treating it to be the only elections of the Committee of Management without there being any dispute.
It is not understood how the Respondent no.4 had got the elections of the Committee of Management held when the authorized controller was functioning. It would be the duty of the authorized controller to get the elections held. The Respondent no.4 cannot get the benefit of the Government Order dated 26.6.2006 wherein it was stated that valid elections of the Committee of Management be got held and charge be handed over to the elected Committee of Management. In the facts of the present case, valid elections of the Committee of Management could only be got held through the authorized controller who was the District Inspector of Schools. Rival claimants cannot be permitted to have the elections held. In the present case, the papers of the elections allegedly held on 4.9.2005 were forwarded after more than ten months on 13.7.2006 which itself casts a doubt regarding the authenticity of the said elections. Even otherwise, since the Respondent no.4 had no authority to have the elections held, the same cannot be said to be a valid election. The reasonings given by the respondent-authorities for recognizing the election of the Respondent no.4 does not appear to be justified. It merely states that since there is no dispute the said elections have been recognized without even considering as to whether the said elections were validly held or not. As such the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be set aside.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 6.10.2006 passed by Respondent no.2 and the consequential order dated 10.10.2006 passed by Respondent no.3 are quashed. The authorized controller is, however, directed to have the elections of the Committee of Management held, in accordance with law, and in terms of the scheme of administration, after finalizing the list of members of the general body as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from today.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.