N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st March, 1995, Annexure 28 to the writ petition, by which the Director of Education has passed order recalling the appointment of the authorised controller, who was appointed by earlier order of the State to manage the affairs of the Institution. By the impugned order, the Director of Education has further directed that the authorised controller is to hand over charge of the Institution and affairs of the Committee of Management to the last out -going committee of Management, namely respondent No. 4. It was also directed to conduct the election according to the prescribed scheme of administration and new body of the Managing Committee be elected and State be informed accordingly through respondent No. 4. Sri P.N. Saxena filed his counter affidavit and Sri R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel do not propose to file the rejoinder and counter affidavits. The matter is ready for final disposal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is abundantly clear that the order passed by the State cannot be sustained. The Director of Education could not have directed that the opposite party No. 4 be given charge to conduct the election for the Committee of Management and withdraw the authorised controller appointed for the State. The purpose and intention of law to appoint an authorised controller for the institution in such situation is only to the effect that the institution may run properly and the interest of the students studying there may not suffer and prejudice. Simultaneously, it is also clear from the language of the provision of the Act that the institution may have a legally constituted Managing Director. Decided cases of our courts specifically said that the authorised controller shall conduct the election out of the General Body within a specified period and the charge of the affairs of the management shall be given to the Body duly elected and approved by the D.I.O.S. in view of the fact that outgoing committee could not and failed to hold the elections for managing committee within one month of expiry of its term. So far giving charge of the affairs of the institution to the opposite party No. 4 cannot be sustained and is, thus, quashed. The order as a whole also cannot be allowed to stand as the authorised controller appointed could not be withdrawn in the situation as mentioned in the order itself.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties are at variance about the membership of the General Body. The petitioner has given a list of members of the General Body which is of 200 persons. The respondents have annexed a list of members which is about 154 persons, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 5 with the counter affidavit. This list of members of 154 annexed by respondents is of 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after 1990 large number of persons have been duly made members and they have legal rights to participate in the election. Their rights should not be curtailed in any manner. This court may not pass any such order, which may deprive their legal right to participate in the election. This question will not be sufficient to detain the court and postpone the matter in any manner. The election has to be conducted for the Managing Committee, but it has to be conducted only in accordance with law and out of duly elected members of the General Body or genuine members of the General Body. The order of the Director impugned dated 21st March 1995 is hereby quashed. The State is directed to appoint an officer not below the rank of associate D.I.O.S. to furnish as authorised controller of the institution within two weeks of presentation of certified copy of this order. The election of the committee of management may be held only after the parties either submit a joint agreed list of members of General Body before the authorised controller within a period of two months from today. If the parties failed to submit such an agreed list before the authorised controller under joint signatures and supported with joint affidavit, the authorised controller shall continue to function as authorised controller and look into the affairs of the management and manage the institution of the Managing Body till the parties get their rights adjudicated by the civil courts. The writ -petition is accordingly allowed. The parties to bear costs.;