B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 18 -9 -1990 (Annexure 16 to the petition) passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools, Region I, Meerut, according recognition to the Committee of Management led by Gurbachan Singh Dhillon, Manager of the Guru Nanak Girls' Inter College, Kankar Khera, Meerut, respondent No. 2, is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. The factual matrix of the case is that to elect the office bearers of the Committee of Management, Guru Nanak Girls' Inter College, Kankar Khera, Meerut, (for short the College), an election was held on 10 -6 -1990 electing Sardar Gurmukh Singh Sethi as President and Sri Gurbachan Singh Dhillon as Manager. The elected office bearers moved an application before the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Region I, Meerut, respondent No. 1, for recognition of their Committee of Management for performance of duties according to law. The recognition to the Committee of Management led by Sardar Gurmukh Singh Sethi as President and Sardar Gurbachan Singh Dhillon as Manager was accorded by the impugned order dated 18 -9 -1990. Against that order the present petition has been filed by the petitioner as ex -Manager, who does not claim to have been elected this time, rather he is just an objector alleging that the election of the Committee of Management, respondent No. 2 was not legal.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner he raised an objection that the election for the office bearers of the Committee of Management, respondent No. 2 was not held according to the Scheme of Administration; and that some of the members have not deposited their membership fee after 30 -6 -1989. The material grievance of the petitioner is that his objection about the election of respondent No. 2 was not considered by the Regional Inspectress of Girls' Schools, respondent No. 1 while according approval to the Committee of Management, respondent No. 2. Reliance was placed on Chandra Kosh Rai v. Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi and others, 1986 EC 231, Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools, 1981 UPLBEC 328. The caveat was filed by Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. It was urged that the Committee of Management headed by Sri Gurbachan Singh Dhillon, the Manager, has been correctly recognised. It was open to respondent No. 1 to give recognition to respondent No. 2 as that was the only elected Committee of Management. The order according approval to the Committee of Management could not be said to be an order strictly under Section 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, (for short the Act), but it was an order facilitating performance of work as enjoined by the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. In the absence of a claim by the petitioner to constitute a parallel Committee of Management, the impugned order is perfectly correct. By the impugned order, under the circumstances, substantial justice has been done and there is no justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on Committee of Management v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, 1982 UPLBEC 529.
(3.) THE facts of the writ petition are almost admitted and at this stage there is no necessity to call for counter -affidavit, the petitioner does not claim to have been elected as rival Committee of Management on the date the election is alleged to have been held (i.e. 10 -6 -1990/15 -9 -1990). The petitioner has raised an objection that the election was not properly held and that so many members who have participated in the election, were in arrears of membership fee and an objection to that effect was raised (by Annexure 12 to the writ petition) and it was urged that on 10 -6 -1990 the election was not held by following the legal procedure and after 30 -6 -1990 about 186 members were in arrears of their subscription. Whereas under Annexure 9 another application has been filed (page 50 of the petition, para. 3) and it has been alleged that last date of depositing the subscription fee was 15 -7 -1989 and all the 186 members of the general body deposited their subscription fee. Annexure 9 contains the allegation contrary to the allegations contained in Annexure 12 filed by the petitioner himself (page 58 of the paper book), where it was alleged that after 30 -6 -1989, 186 members did not deposit their subscription fee. The petitioner did not claim to have been elected on the dates of election (10 -6 -1990/15 -9 -1990) or on any other dates and that was not his case. There was absolutely no question of petitioner constituting the rival Committee of Management.;