AJAB SINGH Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, MEERUT AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1980-9-73
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 09,1980

AJAB SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
District Inspector Of Schools, Meerut And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.)Vedic Shiksha Prasan Samiti runs an educational institution known as the Vedic High School, Faizpur Ninana which is recognised under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. Undisputedly at an election held in the year 1974 a Committee of Management of the institution was constituted and the petitioner was elected as its Manager. Opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and some others claimed that after the expiry of the period of three years with effect from 1974 a meeting of the Sadharan Sahha of the institution was held in the year 1977 and another Committee of Management was constituted of which the respondent no. 2, Sri Sukhbir Singh became the Manager. Since admittedly the Manager of the Institution and the Society which runs the Institution are the same and a distance arose regarding the office of Manager and other office-bearers, "the dispute was referred for decision to the authority constituted under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act In those proceedings, it was held that no election was held in the year 1977 and the Committee of Management of which the petitioner Ajab Singh claims to have been elected Manager in 1974, continued in office. Against that order respondent no 2, filed a writ petition which is pending decision in this Court. An interim order was granted in that writ petition which was subsequently vacated with the consequence that Ajab Singh continued to hold the office of the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Vedic High School. It was claimed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 that on 14-2-1980 a meeting of the Committee of Management was held at which a motion of no confidence was passed removing the petitioner from the office of Manager and a resolution electing respondent No 2 to the office was passed. Since a dispute arose with regard to the validity of.the alleged meeting at which a motion of no confidence is 9aid to have been passed against the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools in order to discharged his statutory functions under the Act and other allied enactments, after hearing parties came to the conclusion that the motion of no confidence has been validly passed removing the petitioner from the office of the Manager and electing respondent No. 2 Sukhbir Singh in the vacancy thus created. By means of this petition Ajab Singh challenges the legality of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut (respondent No. 1).
(2.)A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit also. The petition is consequently ripe for hearing and we are proceeding to decide it on merits in view of the orders passed by Honble K.M. Dayal, J. dated 6-6-1980.
(3.)Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention. to the Scheme of Administration of the Institution which has received the approval of the Director of Education under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and has contended that it contains no provisions for removal a office-bearer through emotion of no confidence. He contended further that assuming that there is an implied power in the electors to an office to recall their representative by means of a motion of no confidence, in the instance case, according to the scheme of Administration the ex-officio members of the Committee of Management had no right to participate in the election of the office bearers and consequently cannot be said to have an inherent power to participate in proceedings for removal of the office-bearers. He further contended that according to the scheme of Administration the power of the Committee of Management is confined to electing office bearers from amongst themselves and undisputedly Sukhbir Singh who is alleged to have been elected as Manager in place of the petitioner, was not & member of Committee of Management. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner M well as learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the standing counsel and in our opinion there is force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and this petition must succeed. According to the scheme of Administration the Committee of Management consists of fifteen members, of which twelve are to be elected, while the remaining three who are employees of the Institution are ex-officio members. The scheme of Administration provided that the twelve elected members of the Committee of Management alone have a right to participate in the election of the office bearers and the ex-officio members have no right to participate therein. The intention behind this provision scents to be clearly that employees of the Institution who became ex-officio members of the Committee of Management will not participate in the election polities of the college concerned and that whey they have been debarred from participating In the election proceedings. -Assuming that there is an inherent power in the Committee of Management which elects the office-bearers, to remove an office bearer elected by means of motion of no confidence, since the ex-officio members have no right to elect the office-bearers, they cannot be assumed to have any right to participate in the removal of such office-bearers. In the instant case the term of the Committee of Management which was elected in the year 1974, expired in the year 1977, and the motion of no confidence was passed on the assumption that the Committee of Management elected in 1974 of which the petitioner was the Manger, continued to exist. According to paragraph 7 of the Scheme of Administration the period of office of members of the Committee of Management, apart from these who are office-bearers or are ex-officio members, shall be three years. As a result of paragraph except for the five office bearers and the three ex-officio members, the term of the office of other members expired in the year 1977 and they automatically ceased to be members of the Committee of Management. Thus at the time when the motion of no confidence is alleged to have teen passed the Committee of Management was constituted only by the office-bearers and the three ex-officio members From the narration of facts contained in the impugned order of the district Inspector of Schlock it appears that four members of the Committee of Management requisitioned a meeting for considering the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. These four men.bears alone participated in the meeting and passed a motion of no confidence against the petitioner and also (passed a resolution electing Sukhbir Singh who was not a member of the Committee of Management as Manager thereof. Two of the members who participated in the mating at which the motion of no confidence is alleged to have been passed against the petitioner, were ex-officio members of the Committee being members of its teaching staff. The scheme of Administration gave them no right to participate in the election of the office-bearers, if that is so, they obviously had no power to participate id the removal of the office-bearers by application i-f any principle of law. Two of the members thus who participated in the meeting at which a motion of no confidence is said to have been passed against the petitioner illegally took part in tho e proceedings. The participation of outsiders in making decision, in our opinion, vitiated the proceedings in that meeting. As far as the resolution electing Sukhbir Singh respondent No. 2 as Manager of the college is concerned it cannot be sustained obviously because no vacancy was created in the office of the Manager, the motion of no confidence removing the petitioner being itself illegal. A contrary view taken by respondent no 2 cannot be legally sustained. Moreover, under the scheme of Administration the Committee of Management can elect office-bearers only from out of the members of the Committee of Management. Respondent No. 2 Sukbbir Singh admittedly w as not a member of the Committee of Management' and was consequently disentitled the elected as an office-bearer. Sukhbir Sirgh as would appear f om the impugned order, was only a number of the Sadharan Sabha of the Vedic High School
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.