Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THE Committee of Management of Janata Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Baikunthpur, Deoria was elected for three years on 20 -5 -1990. The petitioner was elected Manager of the said institution. The petitioner has alleged that suddenly he came to know that on 28 -1 -91 the District Inspector of Schools has attested the signature of respondent No. 2 as Manager of the Institution. Respondent No. 2 was admittedly elected as Junior Vice President of the institution in the election held on 20 -5 -90. The petitioner has alleged that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before attesting the signature of the respondent No. 2, and the rule of natural justice was violated. The petitioner has also contended that under the Scheme of Administration there is no provision for passing no confidence motion, and for this contention the petitioner has relied on the decision of this court in Ajab Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, 1980 UPLBEC 308 wherein it has been held that if there is no provision in the Scheme of Administration for passing no confidence motion, no such motion can be passed. It was also contended that no order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools before attesting the signature of the respondent No. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the record. It has been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter -affidavit that the joint meeting of the general body of the society and committee of management was held on 15 -11 -1991 in which a no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner No. 2. A true copy of the resolution of no confidence motion dated 15 -11 -1991 is Annexure CA -4 to counter -affidavit. The first question to be decided is whether there is any provision for no confidence motion in the scheme of Administration, copy of which has been filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Clause 13 of the scheme of Administration states. A perusal of the said clause at first glance creates an impression that the committee of management can only prevent a member from being present at the meeting and casting his vote, and hence it does not strictly many suggestion given in spell check of a Manager. Such an interpretation would however, lead to an absured result because the presence of the Manager in a meeting of the Committee of Management is absolutely essential. I have considered the scheme of Administration, and it has to be held that the said clause by implication provides for removal of a member from his office of the committee of man agreement by no confidence motion. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision for no confidence motion in the scheme of Administration.
(2.) THE next contention of the learned counsel was that no opportunity of hearing was given for attesting the signature of the respondent No. 2. This too is denied in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit in which it was held that due notice was given to the petitioner No. 2 of meeting held on 5 -7 -1991, however, since I am directing that the Regional Dy. Director of Education should now give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No. 2, it is not necessary for me to go into this question in detail. In the rejoinder affidavit the allegation in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit has been denied, and it has been alleged that no valid meeting of no confidence was held at all. It would not be expedient to decide this disputed question of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence I direct that the Regional Dy. Director of Education may decide whether a valid meeting of no confidence was held on 5 -7 -1997 after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties within six weeks of production of a certified copy of order. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of finally. There is no order as to costs.;