R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONERS, claiming to be committee of management and manager of D. A. V. Inter College, Tateri, Meerut (here-in-after referred to as the college) have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18-7-1992, passed by the Deputy Director of Education Meerut under Section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act (here-in-after referred to at the Act), approving the election of the committee of management of which respondent No. 3 is the manager.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed a counter affidavit and petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners, has challenged the impugned order on three grounds, namely, (i) the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice ; (ii) the Deputy Director of Education has not considered the case of the petitioners ; and (iii) finding of the Deputy Director of Education holding the respondent No. 3 to be in effective control of the college is perverse and contrary to the material on record. Learned counsel for the respondents has disputed the aforesaid submissions. It is admitted to both the parties that the election of the committee of management of the college was held on 2-10-1991. There is however, dispute about the persons, who have been elected as the members and the office bearers of the committee. The District Inspector of Schools. Meerut (here-in-after referred to as the: DIOS) in order to get the dispute resolved referred the matter under Section 16-A (7) of the Act to the Deputy Director of Education for adjudication. The Deputy Director of Education vide his letter dated 29-12-1991. directed the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 to send their representations in sealed cover to him within a period of one month. In pursuance of the above letter of the Deputy Director of Education, the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 sent their respective representations along with the documentary evidence to him in separate sealed cover. 13-7-1992 was fixed for hearing by the Deputy Director of Education on which date both the parties were called. Petitioner No. 2 however, applied for adjournment on account of his engagement elsewhere, which request was granted by the Deputy Director of Education and for his argument 15-7-1992 was fixed. The respondent No. 3 argued his case before the Deputy Director of Education on 13-7-1992, itself, whereas petitioners were beared on 15-7-1992.
(3.) FROM the procedure adopted by the Deputy Director of Education and from the perusal of the record, two things become clear, viz., firstly, copies of the representation and the documents filed in support thereof by respondent No. 3 before the Deputy Director of Education were not given to the petitioners and the petitioners have no knowledge about their contents ; and secondly, the arguments of the petitioners and respondents No. 3 were heard by the Deputy Director of Education on different dates in the absence of each other. As mentioned above, the Deputy Director of Education asked both the parties to send their representations in sealed cover and both the parties sent their respective representations separately in sealed cover as the above papers were sent in a sealed cover, question of knowing their contents by the petitioners did not arise. In paragraphs 25 and 27 of the writ petition petitioners have Specifically stated that the representations and the documents filed in support thereof by respondent No. 3 were never made available to them. Respondent No. 3 In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit has pointed out that the petitioners did not raise this objection before the Deputy Director of Education and at the time of hearing all the documents were available before this Deputy Director of Education, which were also perused and Inspected by title petitioners and thereafter arguments were raised by the petitioner No, 2 In paragraph 22 of the rejoinder affidavit the averments made by tie respondent No. 3 in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit have been denied. Grievance raised by the petitioners appears to be justified. It is not disputed that the copies of the representation and the documents filed in support thereof by the respondent No. 3 were not given to the petitioners. What has been stated in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit is that the petitioners did not raise this point before the Deputy Director of Education and in fact at the time of hearing, he Inspected all the documents. It is not possible to accept the version of the respondent No. 3, As has been stated by the petitioners in the writ petition and as is also clear from the impugned order, the respondent No. 3 was heard by the Deputy Director of Education on 13-7-1992 whereas the petitioners were heard on 15-7-1992. On 15-7-1992 when the petitioners No. 2 was heard, the respondent No. 3 was not present. As to what transpired before the Deputy Director of Education on 15-7-1992 when the petitioner No. 2 was being heard, cannot be verified by the respondent No. 3. It was the duty of the Deputy Director of Education to give copies of the representations and the documents filed by the parties to each other so as to enable them to argue their oases effectively. This has not been done in the instant case. The procedure adopted by the Deputy Director of Education was in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. As regards the second point, it may be mentioned that the findings have been recorded by the Deputy Director of Education In the impugned order from page 84 to page 93 of the writ petition. He has considered and discussed the case and the papers submitted by the respondent No. 3 a through the above pages. Reference of only one aspect of the case pertaining to the Election Officer raised by the petitioners has been mentioned at pages 87 and 88 but no finding about it has been recorded. At page 91, there is again a reference of the same aspect of the case of the petitioners pertaining to the appointment of Election Officer. On this point finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Education is that as Sri Hari Singh Verma, the first Election Officer has only accepted the nominations and has done nothing more the conduct of the election and declaration of the result by Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma, the second Election Officer, who is also said to have been nominated by the DIOS is liable to be taken as correct. No other point raised by the petitioners in their representation, a copy of which has been filed along with the writ petition, has been considered, dealt with and decided by the Deputy Director of Education. The case set up by the petitioners, as such, has remained undecided.;