Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and Sri R.P. Dubey, Advocate, who wanted to be impleaded on behalf of Principal of the Institution, who alleges himself to be the Joint Secretary of the Committee of Management. He has filed a counter affidavit. The same may be kept on record.
(2.) THE order under challenge is dated 13.09.2010, by which petitioner No. 2, who is Secretary of the Committee of Management of C.L. Jain Post Graduate College, his approval as Secretary has been cancelled only relying upon Section 39 of the Universities Act. For the convenience of the Court Section 39 is being quoted below: 39. Disqualification for membership of Management. - A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Management of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or by local authority), if he or his relative accepts any remuneration for any work in or for such college or any contract for the supply or goods to or for the execution of any work for such college: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the acceptance of any remuneration by a teacher as such or for any duties performed in connection with an examination conducted by the college or for any duties as Superintendent or Warden of a training unit or of a hall or hostel of the college or as a proctor of tutor of for any duties, of a similar nature in relation to the college. According to Petitioners, the election of Committee of Management was held and by order dated 12.11.2009 it was recognized and the signatures of the office bearers were attested. An objection has been raised by the petitioners regarding application for impleadment that Principal of the Institution cannot become the Joint Secretary of the Committee of Management. He can only be ex officio member. It is apparent from the order dated 12.11.2009 that the person who wanted to be impleaded as one of the respondent working as a Principal. His name has been recognized as ex officio member of the Committee of Management. A complaint by one Ashok Dixit was made to the Vice Chancellor stating therein that two real younger brothers of Anil Kumar Yadav, who is working as Secretary, are working in the same College and according to Section 39 of the University Act such person cannot be elected as an office bearer of the Committee of Management if his relation is working in the Institution. A request was also made for superseding the Committee of Management. A show cause notice was issued and the petitioners submitted a reply stating therein that Section 39 will not be applicable in view of the proviso of the said section, but in spite of the aforesaid fact the order impugned has been passed dated 13.09.2010 only placing reliance upon Section 39 of the Act cancelling the election of the petitioner being a Secretary of the Committee of Management.
(3.) SRI P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is bad in law in view of the fact that Section 39 will not be applicable in the present case because the brothers of the petitioner were already working from 2002 and 2006 and their appointments have already been approved. Section 39 does not states that if an employee is working in the Institution, his relation cannot become the office bearer of the Committee of Management. There is a provision to this effect in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, but in the Universities Act there is no such provision, but placing reliance upon the aforesaid provision only a cryptic order without assigning any reason has been passed. From the perusal of the order, it clearly appears that no reason has been recorded, therefore, a clear presumption is that the respondent while considering the claim of the petitioner has not applied its mind.;