A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) THE matter was heard on 18.1.2011. The challenge to the order of the Joint Director of Education has been raised on several grounds whereby the Joint Director of Education had accepted the elections of the respondent No. 5 dated 12.4.2009. The following interim order was passed after having heard learned Counsel for the parties. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Bhushan for the respondent No. 5 and Sri P.N. Tripathy for the respondent No. 6. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education respondent No. 3 recognising the elections claimed by the respondent No. 5 to have been held on 12.4.2009. Apart from other grounds the main ground of challenge is that the said elections dated 12.4.2009 could not have been recognised inasmuch as the elections were held through one Kalp Nath Maurya who was the then Manager continuing on the strength of a status quo order passed by this Court on 9.4.2003 in Writ Petition No. 15188 of 2003. The said writ petition was admittedly dismissed as infructuous on 12.11.2009. Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel contends that the order of status quo therefore did not permit any body to hold the elections and even otherwise the tenure of earlier Committee which had been elected in 2000 had also expired in 2003. The provision under the Scheme of Administration as per Clause 8 is that if fresh elections are held within a period of 3 years and one month then only a Committee can be recognised or else a Prabandh Sanchalak has to be appointed. He relies on the Full Bench decision in the case of Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College v. Dy. Director of Education and others : (2005) 1 UPLBEC 85. It is therefore, submitted that in the absence of any valid elections having held by Kalp Nath Maurya either in 2003 or 2006 he had no authority to hold any fresh elections in 2009. Prima facie the contention of Sri Khare is correct. The impugned order does not take notice of the aforesaid facts nor does it advert itself to the aforesaid dispute in relation to Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration. The petitioner is therefore entitled for an interim relief. Until further orders of this Court operation of the order dated 27.12.2010 shall remain stayed. Sri Anil Bhushan prays that he shall obtain instructions and give a statement in relation to aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner by day after tomorrow. Sri P.N. Tripathy shall also obtain instructions in that connection. Put up day after tomorrow.
(2.) SRI Anil Bhushan learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 had taken time for instructions and today he invited the attention of the Court to the application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 copy whereof has been appended as Annexure 36 to the writ petition where it has been alleged that the elections had been held by the respondent No. 5 on 14.4.2003 and again in 2006. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts the answering respondent was entitled to hold the elections of 2009. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that this plea has no legs to stand inasmuch as the very impugned order which recognizes the elections of the respondent No. 5 itself records that there was no validly elected recognised committee and no recognition had been granted to any such elections while reciting the reasons in support of the conclusions drawn in respect of Issue No. 4. The finding recorded in the impugned order is to the following effect;
(3.) SRI Khare, learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that such elections had been held the same has been rejected and therefore it is more than evident that there was no validly elected Committee having a right to hold elections.;