- (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.7.2012, passed by the D.I.O.S. whereby the no confidence motion passed in the resolution on 30.5.2012 against the petitioners has been accepted, and also the election of Sri Man Mohan Singh respondent no.4 as the new Manager of the Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. The facts briefly stated are that there is the college known as Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District-Kanpur (the College). The college is managed by a Committee of Management under the Scheme of Administration and the petitioner no.2 is the manager of the said Committee of Management. Certain allegations of financial irregularities were made against the petitioner no.2 and a notice was given by the President of the Committee, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai respondent no. 5, requesting the petitioner no.2 to call a meeting of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. The meeting of the Committee of Management was stated to have been held on 30.05.2012, and therein a resolution of no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner no.2. In the same resolution, the respondent no. 4 Sri Man Mohan Singh was also elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of the college. In this meeting which is held on 30.5.2012, nine members were present. Thereafter, out of these nine members, eight members also appeared before the Principal of the Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar, who had been appointed as the Observer. These eight members are stated to have submitted their affidavits to the Principal affirming that they had participated in the resolution held on 30.5.2012, and voted for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. The Principal of Government Inter College, is also stated to have submitted his report on 5.7.2012, confirming that eight members had appeared before him and had submitted their affidavits dated 13.6.2012, affirming that they had voted for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. A video recording was prepared of the proceedings and C.D. was also made.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Bhavesh Pratap Singh for the petitioners, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi for the respondent no.4, Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Sri Ashok Khare raised the following objections:- 1. That as per para 5 of the Scheme of Administration, the Committee has 15 members but in the resolution passed on 30.5.2012, only nine members are stated to have participated. 2. That as per para 5 of the Scheme of Administration the vote of no confidence has to be passed by a 2/3rd majority of the members present in a particular meeting in which a motion of no confidence against a particular office bearer is passed after giving notice. According to him a 2/3rd majority out of 15 members would require 10 members but the admitted position on record is that only 9 members participated in the resolution on 30.5.2012, wherein the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioners. 3. That as per para 9 (ii), which deals with an Emergent Meeting, Emergent Meeting of the Committee can be called by the Manager with the approval of the President when necessary and shall require the written requisition of at least four members containing the resolution or the specific subject for consideration. The submission was that no letter was communicated to the petitioner no.2 for calling any Emergent Meeting for purposes of consideration and passing a motion of no confidence. 4. That the District Inspector of Schools did not consider the objections of the petitioner dated 25.6.2012. 5. That the petitioner no.2 had requested the District Inspector of Schools to provide certain documents relating to no confidence motion but the same were not provided to him. Taking the first submission of Sri Khare, para 5 (a) of the Scheme of Administration of the College provides that the Committee shall have 15 members out of which 3 shall be ex-officio members, namely, the principal and 2 teachers. The submission of Sri Ashok Khare was that in the resolution of 30.5.2012, only 9 members participated and the 3 ex-officio members neither participated nor any notice was sent to them, and therefore, the resolution of 30.5.2012 cannot be said to have been validly held in the absence of notice to the ex-officio members. Considering the second objection Sri Khare submitted that as per para 7 of the Scheme of Administration the motion of no confidence was required to be passed by a 2/3rd majority, whereas admittedly only 9 members were present. As per para 5 of the Scheme of Administration the Committee has 15 members and 2/3rd majority would require at least 10 members to vote in favour of the motion of no confidence. Admittedly, only 9 members were present and therefore, the motion of no confidence cannot be said to be valid and could not have been acted upon. Sri Khare next submitted that even otherwise, the Committee has 15 members and the 3 ex-officio members are also part of the Committee but no notice was issued to them regarding the resolution to be held on 30.5.2012, therefore the resolution cannot be said to be valid in the absence of the 3 ex-officio members. Sri Khare further submitted that as per para 9(i) of the Scheme of Administration an ordinary meeting of the Committee is required to be called by the Manager at least once every quarter with the approval of the President. However under para 9(ii), an Emergent Meeting may be called by the Manager with the approval of the President when necessary on the written requisition of at least 4 members containing the resolution or the specific subject for consideration.
(3.) THE next submission of Sri Khare is that a signature of the President Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai on 14.5.2012 (annexure 14 of the writ petition) which only mentions certain enquiries in respect of one Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh Gaur but there is no request for calling an Emergent Meeting and it only mentions that in the upcoming meeting primacy shall be given to this subject for consideration. It was further submitted that another notice was sent by the President, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai dated 18.5.2012 (page 133 of the writ petition), wherein a request was made for calling an Emergent Meeting but there was no mention in the said meeting that any motion of no confidence against the Manager, petitioner no.2 would be considered. Thereafter, another notice was sent on 26.5.2012 (page 134 of the writ petition), wherein also a request was made for holding an Emergent Meeting on 30.5.2012 which had three items on the agenda, namely; 1. Consideration of the minutes of the last meeting. 2. Discuss the financial and administrative arrangements in the College and the functioning of the Manager i.e. the petitioner. 3. Any other item with the permission of the president. Sri Khare submits that in this notice dated 26.5.2012 also there was no mention that any motion of no confidence was to be considered against the petitioner. Thereafter, an Emergent Meeting was held on 30.5.2012 in which the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner. After the resolution was passed on 30.5.2012, a notice was received by the petitioner from the office of the D.I.O.S. calling for the petitioner's explanation through a show cause notice dated 14.6.2012. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 26.6.2012 (annexure 15 to the writ petition), but the same has not been considered while passing the impugned order dated 6.7.2012.;