- (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Tewari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apoorva Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner, Pandit S.Chandra, learned counsel for the caveator (not impleaded in the writ petition), Sri U. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant seeking impleadment and Sri Avinav Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and its authority.
(2.) The dispute herein is regarding the election of the Committee of Management of the college in question and the consequent actions taken by the Educational Authorities invalidating the same, appointing the authorise controller and attesting his signatures. The petitioner Committee of Management was duly elected for a period of three years on 06.11.2011 and no dispute was raised about the said election. It is said that before expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, the process for holding the elections for the new Committee of Management was commenced in August, 2014, intimation was sent to the members of the general body for participating in the same and an observer was appointed by the D.I.O.S. According to the petitioner, the meeting of the general body took place on 28.09.2014 in the presence of the observer appointed by the D.I.O.S. and the elections were held wherein the office bearers were elected. However, it appears that the observer submitted an adverse report to the D.I.O.S. dated 01.10.2014 stating that all the proceedings were prepared beforehand and he was asked to sign the same but he declined. Based on the report of the observer, the D.I.O.S. vide his order dated 03.12.2014 referred the matter to the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education stating that neither any election officer was appointed nor any election schedule was declared, therefore, the election in question was not valid, specially in view of the report of the observer. Out of 81 members, 61 were intimated through U.P.C. Though the said mode of service had been abolished by the postal department of the Government of India vide notification dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the notices could not have been sent by the said mode. The D.I.O.S. also referred to a letter of the President of the Committee of Management, Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav in response to the D.I.O.S.'s letter stating that the entire proceedings was held fraudulently in his absence and the proceedings did not bear his signatures. In view of the reference, the Regional Level Committee held the proceedings after giving notice to the concerned parties and after hearing them out, considering the submissions of the rival parties, the Regional Level Committee vide impugned order dated 02.01.2015, declared the elections as illegal and invalid. Consequently, it directed the D.I.O.S., Balrampur to get the elections held as per law within a period of three months. In spite of lapse of one and a half months, it is said that the D.I.O.S. has not initiated any steps for holding the election. Meanwhile, on 15.01.2015, the Regional Joint Director of Education, i.e. opposite party No.5 passed an order appointing an Authorised Controller in the college in question for facilitating the payment of wages and other benefits to its teachers and employees. This appointment was made till the election of new Committee of Management. The petitioner-Committee of Management has been referred therein as the superseded management. Consequently, on 19.01.2015, the signatures of the Authorised Controller, Sri Ramesh Chandra Verma, Principal, Rajkiya Inter College, Gaisai, Balrampur were attested by the D.I.O.S. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court.
(3.) The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order of the D.I.O.S. referring the matter to the Regional Level Committee is without jurisdiction and without any legal basis as there is no provision under which he could have referred it to the said committee. He contended that even on facts, the decision of the Regional Level Committee is not sustainable. Regional Level Committee had not at all considered the apparent fact which was placed before it that the observer did, in fact, put his signatures on the proceedings nor any explanation was sought from the observer in this regard. The notices to 61 members were sent by U.P.C. as the petitioner was not aware about the abolition of the said mode of service and even the employees of the postal department were not aware of it, that is why they did not raise any objection. He tried to justify the action by submitting that under the Scheme of Administration, the mode of service prescribed was through U.P.C. as the same was in existence at the time when said bye-laws/ Scheme of Administration was framed. He also invited the attention of the court to Annexure-15 to the writ petition to show that the notice of the meeting of the general body fixed for 28.09.2014 was published in the newspaper ''Balrampur Tarang' published from Barlrampur, therefore, the members had sufficient notice. The fact remains that all the members participated in the proceedings and the proceedings bore their signatures, therefore, the same could not have been invalidated only for the aforesaid reason. Regarding appointment of Authorised Controller, learned senior counsel submitted that Regional Joint Director of Education did not have any authority to appoint an Authorised Controller under any provision of law, that too, without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Committee of Management. In this regard he also relied upon clause-8 of the Approved Scheme of Administration. He also submitted that clause-21 of the said Scheme of Administration had been deleted by means of government order dated 02.09.2008, a copy of which was placed by him before the court, therefore, according to him, the Joint Director could not have passed the said order under the said provision.;