- (1.) THE special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20 July 2015 upholding a preliminary objection raised by the fifth respondent to the maintainability of a writ petition (challenging an order of the District Inspector of Schools, Etah dated 22 June 2015) that the appellants had an alternate remedy before the Regional Level Committee. The dispute in the present case relates to an election which was held to the Committee of Management of an Inter College governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The last election prior to the immediately previous election which has given rise to the dispute was held in 2010. The second appellant was elected as the Manager. The case of the appellants is that a meeting was convened on 27 March 2015. The appellants have stated that they had filed objections on 2 June 2015 before the Election Officer. The District Inspector of Schools, Etah by an order dated 22 June 2015 attested the signatures of the newly elected office bearers which resulted in a writ petition being filed by the appellants challenging the said decision. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition upholding the objections to maintainability on the ground that an alternate remedy was available before the Regional Level Committee. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the appellants had an alternative remedy before the Regional Level Committee.
(2.) IN this regard, reliance was placed on a few judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Yadvesh Inter College, Jaunpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : 2011 (2) UPLBEC 1463 (DB) and in Committee of Management, Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College v. State of Uttar Pradesh, : 2011 (5) ADJ 195 (DB). The Division Bench in Yadvesh (supra) construed the provisions of an earlier Government Order dated 19 December 2000 by which a Regional Level Committee was constituted to decide the question of attesting signatures and for resolving election disputes. Subsequently, on 20 October 2008, another Government Order was issued by which the District Inspector of Schools was conferred with powers to attest the signature of the Manager where there was no legal difficulty and in case there be some legal impediment, the matter was to be referred to the Regional Level Committee. The Division Bench held that the Regional Level Committee has the power to decide disputes relating to elections of the Committee of Management only where the matter was referred by the District Inspector of Schools as once he had attested the signatures of the Manager, he was rendered functus officio to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee. The same view was taken in the subsequent decision of the Division Bench in which it was held that the District Inspector of Schools shall attest the signatures when there is no such dispute which may require a reference to the Regional Level Committee. Hence, in the present case, it was sought to be urged that the District Inspector of Schools ought to have referred the disputes to the Regional Level Committee. This submission however misses the point that there was no objection raised by the appellants as such before the District Inspector of Schools. The appellants had addressed a communication on 2 June 2015 to the Election Officer, a copy of which was addressed to the District Inspector of Schools. However, it is evident that nothing was produced before the learned Single Judge to indicate that a specific objection was raised by the appellants before the District Inspector of Schools which would have warranted the District Inspector of Schools to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee.
(3.) WE , however, find merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellants have an alternate remedy available against the decision of the District Inspector of Schools before the Regional Level Committee. Plainly, the District Inspector of Schools could have referred the dispute only if there was a valid objection before him at the behest of the appellants. There was none. The second appellant, the Court has been informed, has also participated in the election which was held and was unsuccessful.;