N.L.Ganguly, J. - (1.) Raj Narain Sing files this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of Panchsheel Inter College, Fatehganj, Jaunpur. He prayed for quashing of the order of the District Inspector of Schools, by which he attested and recognised the signature of Shri Narendra Bahadur Singh, wrongly spelled in the writ petition array of the party as 'Nagendra Bahadur Singh' as Manager of Committee of Management of Panchsheel Inter College, Fatehganj, Jaunpur. The allegation of the petitioner is that election was held for the member of the managing committee and its office bearers on 25-9-1989. Programme for the conduct of election was published in newspaper 'Tarun Mitra' dated 13th September, 1989, a photocopy of which is annexed to the counter affidavit of the contesting respondent as Annexure-C-A. 2(c). the petitioner stated that immediately after the election 26-9-1989. He submitted the paper and election result etc. to the District Inspector of School on the same day personally but the District Inspector of Schools asked to submitted it to the clerk concerned in his office. He pleased that he accordingly submitted the paper to the clerk concerned at the officer of the District Inspector of School. A receipt was us also obtained from the clerk concerned 26-9-1989. Photocopy of the said receipt has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure SRA-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit and a true copy of the same is also annexed with writ petition as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that after submission of all the papers to the District Inspector of Schools' Office, he continued visiting him and asking him repeatedly about the election for months lastly on 17.10.1989, he submitted an application before the District Inspector of Schools, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, in which he stated that the papers concerning the election were submitted at his office on 26-9-1989 and nothing has been done till date. He sought for the information from the District Inspector of Schools as to what action he ha taken after receiving the said paper. The petitioner has annexed a letter dated 10-11-1989 sent to him by the District Inspector of Schools, in which the District Inspector of Schools informed the petitioner that he came to know by letter dated 17-10-1989 that election was held on 26-9-1989 and all papers concerning he said election were received at his office. The District Inspector of Schools asked he petitioner to furnish all papers; list of General Body and copy of Amendment Scheme of Administration and all papers concerning the election for his perusal. This letter of District Inspector of Schools was replied by the petitioner by another letter dated 29-11-1989 and he submitted the requisite papers as were called by the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 27-7-1989 had already communicated to the Committee of Management and its Manager namely; Narendra Bahdur Singh that he was approved and recognised as Manager of the Committee of Management and his order dated 27-9-1989 he filed the present writ petition on 2-1-1990, which was admitted on 5-1-1980.
(2.) The contesting respondent No. 2 Narendra Bahadur Singh has filed his counter affidavit and the District Inspector of Schools has also filed a counter affidavit rejoinders to the said counters have been filed. This petition is ready for final hearing. It was previously heard but for want of counter affidavit on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, the judgment could not be delivered at that time. Now the matter is being heard as a fresh and he petition is being decided finally with the consent of the parties.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that his client submitted the papers relating to the election and it was his client, who was elected on 26-9-1989. The papers were received at the office of the District Inspector of Schools, still the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 27-7-1989. approved and attested the signature of Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh alleged to have been elected in election held on 25-9-1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the letter by which, the District Inspector of Schools had issued notice to the clerk concerned for showing cause as to why he had not put up the papers concerning the petitioner's election on 26-9-1989. The reply was given by the clerk concerned and he categorically denied to have received the papers of any election from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this court to to examine the disputed signature and find out that the signature, which was made on the receipt given to the petitioner was the same person, who had submitted the order that reply. I am afraid that this court cannot assume function of Handwriting Expert in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India now the important facts and controversy of the case is that in the last section of the Committee of the Management, which was held in 1986, the respondent Narendra Bahadur Singh was duly elected as Manager of the Committee of the Management. He was approved and recognise also as the Manager by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner has raised a dispute and has claimed himself to be a Manager elected in the election. He was successful in getting his dispute referred to the Deputy Director of Education under provision of the Section of 16-A (7) of the U.P. intermediate Education Act, that reference was kept pending before the Deputy Director of Education for more than two years, admittedly the terms of the Committee of Management is three years and petitioner the had succeeded to the extent that the dispute was kept pending for more than two years. It appears that he was choose in the present election also that it is a most convenient way to disclosed the elected Manager of Committee of Management by relating dispute. The fact that the election was held on 26.9.1989, which according to the petitioner was conducing by one Amaldar Singh. It is not a case of either of the parties that Amaldar Singh was authorised to conduct the election of the Committee of Management. He apparently was an outsider, petitioner claims that he was a election officer. Their was no record of order of the District Inspector of Schools authorising him to conduct the election. According to the scheme of the Administration the last Committee of Management is required to hold the election which the period of one month immediately after expiry of the three years. It was conduct the supposed the that outgoing committee of Management would election. The notice for election was published in the newspaper at the instance of respondent No. 3. and Shri Sabhajeet Singh, Manager and present respectively. The person who was conducting the election was to submit the result of the election to the District Inspector of Schools. It is not explained under what circumstances the petitioner himself arose up to submit the result of the election. Accordingly to him he had submitted the result of election on 26.9.1989, whereas the election of the committee of management of the opposite party No. 2 was finalised on 25.9.1989 itself and the same was duly communicated to the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the advertisement published in the Newspaper itself shows that the result of the election would be published on 26th September, 1989. There he is wrong. He has not read the documents fully. It is clear that the election result would be declared on 26-9-1989, if there was a contest. Since there was no contest in the election the result was communicated to the District Inspector of Schools the same day i.e. on 25-9-1989.;