A.P.SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.
(2.) THE petitioner-Indrajeet Singh claiming himself to be the Manager of the Institution has come up questioning the correctness of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9th July, 2012 whereby the alleged No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner dated 30th October, 2011 has been accepted and the resolution removing him as a member of the General Body has been found to be valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sinha submits that the matter had been contested earlier in relation to the said no- confidence motion and the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 27th March, 2012 being Writ Petition No. 14549 of 2012. The District Inspector of Schools was called upon to examine the rival documents on which reliance was placed for proving the majority of 2/3rd members present and voting in the no confidence motion which is required under Clause 10(2) of the Scheme of Administration. The petitioner's contention was that the requisite majority was not complete and only seven persons had signed the said alleged no-confidence motion whereas the respondents alleged that there were ten signatories to the said motion which was carried out in accordance with the majority of the existing number of the members and office bearers of the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools whereafter called upon the parties to adduce their evidence and has now passed the impugned order holding that the photostat copies as relied upon by the petitioner appear to be doubtful as there are three blank lines after the signatures of Madan Singh. He further recorded that as against this, the document filed by the respondents indicates the signatures of ten persons and there being no reason to disbelieve the same, the no confidence motion has been approved.
(3.) SRI Sinha for the petitioner has raised three submissions. Firstly, that the respondent no. 4-Amar Singh who was the Vice President of the Committee of Management was not authorized to convene the meeting of the Committee of Management in absence of the President. He has relied on the provisions of Clause 11 of the Scheme of Administration where it is prescribed that the Manager with the consent of the President shall call a meeting and in case this is not done then any six members of the Committee can requisition such a meeting which shall be held with the prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools. Sri Sinha submits that the convening of the meeting itself was invalid and therefore the same is vitiated. His second contention is that the signatories were only seven in number and therefore they did not form 2/3rd majority quorum which is required under Clause 10(2) of the Scheme of Administration to pass a no confidence motion. His third submission is that according to Clause 10(3) of the Scheme of Administration, there is no valid ratification of the said resolution by the members of the General Body and in the absence of any such ratification the alleged resolution of no confidence motion has lost its efficacy.;