Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri P.K. Upadhyay, for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5; and Sri P.C. Pathak for the respondent No. 6. In view of the nature of the order that is being passed as also the grounds on which it is being passed, the learned counsel for the respondents do not pray for time to file counter -affidavit and have agreed for disposal of the writ petition at this stage itself.
(2.) THE dispute in the present case relates to the management of Sarvodaya Inter College, Vaina, District Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the institution), which is a recognized institution governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1921) as also the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971). The last election of the Committee of Management which was held on 12.10.2008 was finally accorded recognition, after several rounds of litigation, by the Regional Level Committee, vide order dated 21.2.2011, in which, the petitioner No. 2 was elected as a Manager. The order dated 21.2.2011 was challenged in Writ C No. 12459 of 2011 wherein an interim order dated 8.3.2011 was passed staying the operation of the order dated 21.2.2011. It is the case of the petitioners that the interim order dated 8.3.2011 was for a limited period and was not extended, yet, illegally, the Joint Director appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak, vide order dated 4.4.2012, which was subject to interim order dated 8.3.2011 which was extended only up to 25.7.2011. The case of the petitioners is that they represented for removal of the Prabandh Sanchalak and a report was given by the District Inspector of Schools, however, on 24.9.2013, the Regional Level Committee directed for holding of elections by the Prabandh Sanchalak, which was challenged by the petitioners through Writ C No. 55168 of 2013 in which an interim order was passed on 8.10.2013 staying the operation of the order dated 24.9.2013. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter they made a request to the District Inspector of Schools for appointing an Observer to hold the elections as the term of the Committee was to come to an end upon which, as also on the request of the Election Officer appointed by the Committee, the District Inspector of Schools appointed an Observer vide order dated 27.3.2014 and the elections were held on 30.3.2014. It is the case of the petitioners that the election papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools who, vide order dated 19.4.2014, attested the signature of the petitioner No. 2, who was elected as the Manager. Thereafter the petitioners moved application for removal of the Prabandh Sanchalak and, when no orders were passed, Writ C No. 26394 of 2014 was filed for direction to remove the Prabandh Sanchalak, which was disposed vide order dated 12.5.2014 with direction to the Joint Director to decide the representation and pass appropriate order. Pursuant to the above direction, the Joint Director, by the impugned order dated 10.7.2014, declared the election dated 30.3.2014 as invalid being against the provisions of the scheme of administration and directed for holding of fresh elections through the District Inspector of Schools and under the supervision of the administration. The Joint Director of Education declared the election, set up by the petitioners, invalid on the grounds: (a) that there was no proper notice to the members of the General Body inasmuch as under the scheme of administration if there are more than 100 members in the General Body then notice of the election should not only be published in local newspaper but should also be sent to members by ordinary post under certificate of posting, which was not done in the instant case; (b) that the approved list of the members of the General body was not sent to the Joint Director of Education; (c) that before the publication of the election program in the newspaper permission was not obtained from the District Inspector of Schools; (d) that information of the election was not given to the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate; and (e) that election, according to the Scheme of Administration, was required to be held within the premises of the institution and, although, the record suggested so but, according to the affidavit of the Principal and 25 members, election was not held in the premises of the institution, which suggests that the election was not conducted in a fair manner.
(3.) SRI G.K. Singh appearing for the petitioners submitted that after elections were already approved by the District Inspector of Schools and no parallel Committee of Management was set up by any rival claimant, the Joint Director could not have adjudicated on the validity of the elections set up by the petitioners. He further submitted that the irregularities, if any, on which the election held on 30/31 March 2014 has been declared invalid, are not such on which the result of the election could be said to have been materially affected. It has been submitted that according to the report of the post office since the year 2011, certificate of posting was not being issued, therefore, apart from publication in newspaper, agenda was circulated personally to the members who have signed in acknowledgment. Thus, there was substantial compliance of the provisions of the Scheme of Administration with regard to the proper publication of the election program and notice to the members of the General Body and, therefore, on the said ground the election could not have been declared invalid. Further, the affidavit of Principal and alleged 25 members denying holding of elections was nothing but false as the alleged members were close relative of rival group and so far as the Principal is concerned, a complaint was filed against him with regards to his qualification, therefore, he made false allegations. It has been submitted that the representation was made to the Joint Director of Education for removing the Prabandh Sanchalak and, therefore, the Joint Director of Education was only required to see whether the continuance of the Prabandh Sanchalak was legally justified in view of the fresh elections or not. It has been submitted that minor variation in the procedure cannot be a ground to declare the election invalid unless a finding is returned that there is substantial non compliance of the procedure thereby materially affecting the result. It has been submitted that every procedure is not mandatory unless it can be shown that non compliance of the same would materially affect the result. It has been submitted that the election procedure was substantially complied with, therefore, declaring the election as invalid for minor infractions was not legally justified.;