Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) -This, broadly speaking, is the third round of litigation in this Court about the management of an educational institution run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, known as Janki Higher Secondary School Society. The society is governed by its bye-laws known as the Constitution of the Society. The structure of the society under the Constitution consists of two bodies-a general body known as the School Samiti consisting of maulik sadasyas and other categories of members and a Committee of Management known as a prabandh samiti. It is not in dispute that the office of the President was held for life under the Constitution by Smt. Janki Devi one of the founder members who had made significant grants for the establishment of the institution, which has since grown into an intermediate college. The office of the Manager was held for life by her son-in-law Madho Prasad. The President and Manager had a right to nominate their successors.
(2.) ON Janki Devi's death in 1957 Madho Prasad relying upon her will, assumed the office of President in addition to that of the Manager already held by him. Disputes between rival groups laying claim to the management of the institution then arose. ONe group that of Bhawani Shanker alleged that Madho Prasad has been expelled from the office of Manager by a resolution of the Committee of Management. Madho Prasad on the other hand claimed that the rival group of members of the committee had been expelled by him. This dispute gave birth to two civil suits. ONe was Original Suit No. 916 of 1960 filed by Madho Prasad seeking amongst other reliefs, a declaration of his right as President and Manager of Janki Devi Higher Secondary School and an injunction restraining the other members of the committee alleged to have been expelled by him from interfering with his rights to function as Manager. The other Suit No. 279 of 1960 was filed by Bhawani Shanker claiming to be the Manager inducted after Madho Prasad had been expelled. Although the suit was for recovery of money from Madho Prasad's son a contractor who was impleaded as a defendant in the suit along with Madho Prasad the question of Bhawani Shanker's right to maintain the suit as Manager was also involved. In the meanwhile, a scheme of administration had been framed in which provision was made for an elected Committee of Management having a term of three years. The Suit No. 916 of 1960 filed by Madho Prasad was partly decreed by the trial court and it was held that Madho Prasad was the Manager and President of the School and the resolution expelling him from the post of Manager was illegal. The expulsion of other members of the Committee of Management by Madho Prasad was also held to be invalid. The other Suit No. 279 of 1960 filed by Bhawani Shanker was dismissed on the ground that he was not the lawful Manager and had no right to maintain the suit. This gave birth to three appeals. One of these was Appeal No. 90 of 1969 filed by Madho Prasad against the decree passed in the Suit No. 916 of 1960 filed by him. Bhawani Shanker also filed two appeals one being Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1969, which was a cross appeal against the decree in the suit of Madho Prasad and the other being Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1960 against the decree in his own suit. The Appeal No. 62 of 1960 filed by Bhawani Shanker dismissing his suit was dismissed. The other Appeal No. 101 of 1969 of Bhawani Shanker was also dismissed except to the extent that it was held that Madho Prasad could not hold both the offices of President and Manager together and that he would have to nominate some other Manager within a reasonable time failing which a Manager would be elected. The appeal filed by Madho Prasad was partly allowed. The declaration regarding the plaintiff's office of President and Manager was maintained subject to the aforesaid condition of nomination of another person as Manager. It was held that the scheme of administration had been submitted and got approved by a group of persons in the capacity of the Committee of Management the rights of which were under adjudication in the civil suit and that only a validly constituted management committee was competent to submit the scheme and it would have been for Madho Prasad the President and Manager to summon a meeting to submit a scheme. It was also directed that the plaintiff will continue till the revised scheme of administration is submitted by the duly constituted managing committee. Two Second Appeal Nos. 1242 of 1970 and 1521 of 1970 were filed in this Court by Bhawani Shanker and were decided by the judgment and decree of this Court on 12.8.1971. It was held that the expulsion of Madho Prasad from the post of Manager by the Management Committee was illegal and so too was the expulsion of the members of the committee by Madho Prasad. It was also held that in the circumstances, the submission of the Scheme of Administration by the de facto management committee could not be said to be an incompetent act. This Court dismissed the Second Appeal No. 1242 of 1970 with the modification in the decree of the lower appellate court that while the plaintiff would continue as President of the Society the administration of the school shall continue to run under the scheme of administration in force till some other amended scheme is approved by the Director of Education. The other Second Appeal No. 1521 of 1970 was allowed and the suit decreed and it was held that the de facto Manager Bhawani Shanker was entitled to institute the suit. An application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for clarification/ modification was filed against the judgment by Madho Prasad, which was dismissed. It is alleged in this writ petition that on the death of Bhawani Shanker, Bhagwati Prasad Pandey was elected as Manager. Two rival sets of elections were set up. The matter regarding the recognition of the Committee of Management came up before the District Inspector of Schools who finding that there were rival claims being made referred the matter under Section 16A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, for decision to the Deputy Director of Education. Thus, began the second round of litigation. The Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 20.2.1982 held that the elections relied upon by Bhagwati Prasad Pandey were not valid. He found that Bhawani Shanker after whom Bhagwati Prasad became Manager himself had no right to be the Manager of the institution in view of the decision in the civil suit that the expulsion of Madho Prasad from the post of Manager was invalid. The Deputy Director of Education found that the elections of the committee relied upon by Bhagwati Prasad Pandey alleged to have been held on 27.6.1965, 4.7.1968, 29.9.1971 and 24.6.1979 were invalid as none of these were held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration by the society. The Deputy Director of Education further found that the rival committee of which Govind Narain son of Madho Prasad is the Manager and Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, the Deputy Manager is the valid committee. The decision of the Deputy Director of Education was challenged by Bhagwati Prasad Pandey in Writ Petition No. 508 of 1981. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Education. It was held as follows : "In view of this matter the Deputy Director of Education was justified in ignoring the alleged elections held on 27.6.1965, 7.7.1968, 20.9.1971 and 24.6.1979 set up by Bhagwati Prasad Pandey, inasmuch as these elections were not held in accordance with the scheme of administration. If on these facts the Deputy Director of Education granted recognition to the Managing Committee constituted on 15.6.1980, he did not commit any illegality." The matter was carried in special appeal. The special appeal remained pending for a long time and ultimately was disposed of by an order dated 22.3.2001. As the interpretation of this order and the effect which it has upon the decision in the writ petition and consequently upon the claim of the parties for recognition is the main issue in the present writ petition, it is necessary to set out below the order that was passed : "We have heard Sri P. N. Saxena, learned advocate for the appellants and Sri U. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The special appeal has become infructuous by long lapse of time. Since the term of the Manager has expired long time back, no fruitful purpose will be served by going into the controversy raised in this case. It is made clear that the adjudication made in the writ petition has no effect at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
(3.) AFTER the dismissal of the special appeal as infructuous the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 16.5.2001 in favour of Radhey Lal who according to the respondent's case had become the Manager after Govind Narain and recognised him to be the prabandhak on the basis of the decision of the Deputy Director of Education in the year 1982, which was upheld by the single Judge in the writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed against this order of the District Inspector of Schools and this is the third round of litigation. I have heard Sri P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.;