S.C.Verma - (1.) BOTH these petitions have been filed by the Committee of Management of Santosh Kumar Memorial Inter College, Gangola, Dataganj. Budaun through its Manager challenging the order of the State Government passed under section 16-D (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, appointing the Principal, Government Inter College, Budaun as the Authorised Controller.
(2.) BEFORE I consider the contentions raised by the petitioner on the merits of the case, few facts may be stated. The impugned order dated 19_7_1986 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 11217 of 1986 and an interim order dated 31st July 1986 was passed which is quoted below : "It has been pointed out on behalf of the opposite-party No. 2 that the authorised controller in pursuance of order dated July 19, 1986 has taken over. We have considered the matter and since prima facie we are of the opinion that the order passed does not satisfy the requirements of law and it is based without consideration of any material or discussion nor recording of any findings, we are of the opinion that its operation should remain stayed. We further direct the opposite party No. 2 not to interfere in the petitioners' managing the affairs of the: College from the date of the copy is presented before him till further orders of the Court" On the basis of the aforesaid order, the petitioners continued to manage the affairs of the Institution. The amended Scheme of Administration for the Institution was approved by the Director of Education on 21-1-1985. The duly recognised elections of the Committee of Management were held in the year 1982 under (the old Scheme of Administration. According to the petitioners, the elections of the Committee of Management were again held on 20-6-1985. The counsel for the petitioners, under some misapprehension, made a statement that the writ petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. The petition was dismissed by an order dated 4-12-1991 as having become infructuous and the interim order was also discharged. The Additional Director of Education, by order dated 20-1-1992, communicated to the Deputy Director of Education, Bareilly that the petition has been dismissed and the stay order has been vacated and, as such, necessary action be taken in accordance with law. The Deputy Director of Education passed an order dated 5-3-1991 directing the Authorised Controller to assume charge, The Authorised Controller again resumed charge. The action of the respondents was challenged in Writ Petition No. 9991 of 1992. The petitioners also challenged the initial order dated 19-7-1986 passed under section 16-D (4) of the Act. The petitioner, realising the mistake, moved an application to set aside the order dated 4-12-1991 dismissing the petition. The order dated 4-12-1991 was recalled but as the Authorised Controller had already taken charge, the interim order dated 31-7-1986 could not be revived. The petitioner in these circumstances, prayed that they may be allowed to take charge of the Management of the Institution. As the affidavits have been exchanged in both the writ petitions, it would be appropriate that both the petitions be disposed of finally.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no, 2, the Authorised controller, raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the amended Scheme of Administration wherein it has been provided that the term of Committee of Management would be three years and after the expiry of the aforesaid period, in case elections have not been held within one month, the District Inspector of Schools would be entitled to hold the elections and the Committee of Management and the officebearers erased to function. It has been alleged that the last elections of the Committee of Management were held in 1982 and in any view of the matter as the elections were not held in accordance with the amended Scheme of Administration, fresh elections may be held by the District Inspector of Schools. The learned counsel for tine petitioner objected to this statement and placed before me the material and averments made in the writ petition which established that the new elections of the Committee of Management were held on 15-8-1991 and the District Inspector of Schools had also recognised the aforesaid elections by order dated 1-9-1991 filed as ANNEXURE '10' to the petition of 1992. It has been alleged that in pursuance of the interim order dated 31-7-1986 the petitioners Committee of Management continued to function and elections of the Committee of Management were held periodically which were duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools. In the last elections held on 15-8-1991, the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signatures of Sri Munendra Pal Singh as the Manager. Thus so long as the order dated 1-9-1991 recognising the newly elected Committee of Management survives, there would be no need to hold fresh elections as the term of the last elected Committee of Management had not expired. Neither the District Inspector of Schools has reviewed the order dated 1-9-1991 nor there is any dispute with respect to the Management of the Institution, which could have been referred for adjudication under section 16-A (7) of the Act. In these circumstances, in my opinion, either the Authorised Controller would function in case the order dated 19-7-1986 and the order dated 5-3-1992 are upheld or the duly recognised Committee of Management would function.;