- (1.) By means of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgement and order dated 1.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition no. 38726 of 2014 whereby the writ petition, which was filed with the prayer for a direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent no. 2 (Regional Level Committee) from proceeding to enquire into or decide the issue with regard to the validity of enrollment of 213 members of the general body of the institution, has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the Regional Level Committee has jurisdiction to decide such issues and as such, a writ of prohibition restraining the Regional Level Committee from adjudicating the matter, does not deserve to be granted.
(2.) The brief facts relating to this case are that the Committee of Management of the institution, which was elected in August, 2008 for a period of three years, had, vide a resolution dated 25.4.2010, inducted 213 new life members. According to the appellants, the objection with regard to the induction of such members was decided and rejected by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 5.6.2010 and affirmed by the Joint Director of Education on 16.7.2010. After completion of the term of three years, fresh elections were held on 17.7.2011 in which all the office bearers were elected unopposed. The respondent no. 4 was elected as Deputy Manager of the said committee of management. Then fresh elections were announced to be held on 1.6.2014 in which the appellants as well as the private respondents no. 4 to 9 had participated. Admittedly, no objection with regard to the electoral college was raised by any party at any stage till the election had been held on 1.6.2014. It was only thereafter that objections with regard to the conduct of the elections had been filed, in which one of the objections was with regard to the electoral college and induction of 213 members in the year 2010. According to the appellants, the question of induction of 213 members in the year 2010 had become final, which cannot be looked into by the Regional Level Committee on the objections of the private respondents. They thus filed the said writ petition praying for a direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent no. 2 (Regional Level Committee) from proceeding to enquire into or decide the issue with regard to the validity of enrollment of 213 members of the general body of the institution, which has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
(3.) We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents no. 5 to 9 and have perused the record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.;