R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) COMMITTEE of Management of M.M.I. Inter College, Nehtour, District Bijnor (herein after referred to as the College) is said to have been elected in 1987. According to the Scheme of Administration the term of the Committee is to continue till the new committee is elected. This scheme was amended in 1989, according to which the term of the Committee is three years and one month, after expiry of which the committee will cease to exist and the Deputy Director has to appoint the Administrator, for holding the election of the new committee and for running the Management of the college till the election is held. In the instant case the election of the new Committee was held on 16.10.1991 by old Committee which was elected in 1987 i.e. after expiry of three years and one month. This election was declared illegal by the Deputy Director of Education. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal. Division Bench of this Court has laid down that on the expiry of its term the Committee will cease to have any existence and it has no power to hold any election of a new committee. In this connection it is sufficient to refer to one of the Division Bench decisions in Ram Kripal Singh v. Committee of Management : 1993 (1) UPLBEC 344. The election field by the appellant on 16.10.1991, as such cannot be said to be legal.
(2.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the term of the Committee of Management which was elected in 1987 cannot be governed by the amended provisions of Scheme of Administration, which was enforced in 1989, because the amendment was prospective only and as such cannot curtail the period of the existing committee. In short, the submission is that fixed term of a Managing Committee of three years and one month will apply to those committees only which were elected after the Scheme was amended in 1989. In support of his submission learned counsel has relied on a decision of learned Single Judge in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, 1991 A.L.J. 1083. A recognised institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has to be run in accordance with the Scheme of Administration framed in accordance with Secs. 16 -A, 16 -B, 16 -C of the Act. In the instant case Scheme of Administration of the College provided that the term of the Committee of Management will continue till the new committee is elected. This Scheme was amended in 1989, whereby the term of Committee of Management was fixed at three years and one month, on the expiry of which it will cease to exist and the Deputy Director has to appoint an Administrator for holding the election and managing the college till then. These amendments in the Scheme of Administration were incorporated in view of Secs. 16 -CC and 16 -CCC, which were inserted in the Act, by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981. Section 16 -CC lays down that the Scheme of Administration in relation to any institution shall not be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the third Schedule. Section 16 -CC gives power to the Director of Education to send notice to the management of the institution suggesting alterations or modifications in the Scheme of Administration and requiring such institution to submit fresh Scheme or to amend or alter the existing Scheme. After considering the representation of the Management the Director of Education has to approve the new Scheme or amend or alter in the existing Scheme, as the case may be. It is thus obvious that Scheme of every institution, governed by the Act, cannot be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the third Schedule. Amendment introduced in the existing Scheme takes effect immediately. Although it is not retrospective in operation, but the term of the existing Committee has to be calculated in accordance with it. When amendment is enforced only from the date when it was made and not from any earlier date, it cannot be said to be retrospective, merely because it might affect the term of the committee which was elected prior to the date of amendment. In Bishun Narain v. State of U.P. : AIR 1965 SC 1567. Supreme Court has laid down that if the rule reducing the age of retirement of a Government servant is enforced only from the date when it was promulgated and not from any earlier date, the rule will not be retrospective, merely because it would affect the person who has joined the service prior to the amendment. Such a rule will govern the age of retirement of every government servant whether he entered service before or after the amendment. That apart, after the introduction of Secs. 16 -CC and 16 -CCC in the Act the Scheme which has to be operated is the Scheme which is prepared in accordance with those provisions. Decision of the learned Single Judge in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education (supra) does not lay down good law and has to be over -ruled. It may also be mentioned that this decision of learned Judge has already been over -ruled, though on different point, by Division Bench in the case of Ram Kripal Singh v. Committee of Management (supra). For the reasons given above, this appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.;