- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In. the case by an order dated 17 -7 -1992 ; passed in writ petition No. Nil of 1992 it was directed that the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun shall take over the management of the institution immedi ately and will alone be entitled to operate the accounts maintained in the name of Sri Mahatma Gandhi Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Kudari, Jalaun. Subsequently by another order dated 10 -1 -1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 28206 of 1992 the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun was directed to hold the election of the office bearers and members of the Com mittee of Management within a period o one month from the date a certified copy of the said order is produced before him in accordance with the provisions of scheme of Administration and shall handover the Management of the Institution to the Committee of Management elected/ constituted in accordance with law simultaneously with the declaration of the result.
(2.) NOW the dispute crop up with regard to induction of 31 new life members by the District Inspector of Schools. It was contended by Mr. V. B. Singh appearing with Mr. Bhaghal for the petitioners that the District Inspector of Schools was only managing the institution and not a substitute for the managing committee. The induction of member is pro vided in the scheme of management in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Clause (3) which provides two kinds of members only namely life and general mem bers. Referring to clause 6 for Constitution of Society in Paragraph 4 he points out that a member can be made by the Managing Committee and in case of refusal in that event the same be placed before General Body, He draws my attention to the fact that all the member a were sought to be inducted as new members in July, 1995. Relying on sub -clause 5 (Ghah) of Clause 17, he submits that the Bank draft for becoming a member is to be deposited with the Treasurer who would deposit the same in the Mainte nance Accounts of the Institution, but in the present case the Bank Draft has not been deposited in the Maintenance Accounts of the Institution. Mr. Sankatha Rai for the respondents submitted that the autho rised controller was appointed by the District Inspector of Schools by reason of the order dated 17 -7 -1992 passed in writ petition Nil of 1992. The District Inspector of Schools had taken over the Management of the Institution and therefore he had all the power of the Committee of the Management. He further contends that according to the Scheme of Management there is no embargo of one years membership prior to acquir ing eligibility for casting vote by a life member as is provided for an ordinary, general members. He further contended that once the election process start the same cannot be interfered with. According to him the election process has started by publication of the list of members. He relied on the case of Basant Prasad Srivastava and another v. State of U. P. and others reported in 1993 (2) UPLBEC 133 and in the case of Committee of Management of Sri Prachar Vidhyapith Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah reported in 1995 (1) UPLBEC 52. He also relied on the case of Hridaya Nath Rai v. Deputy Director of Education reported 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1233 and contends that once the election process starts the same cannot be postponed or interfered with. The same is only said to challenge by way of election petition or by a suit.
(3.) IN the present case the question is not related to the election process. It is confined to the question whether 31 new members inducted by the District INspector of Schools can be so inducted by him, is the contention of Mr. Singh. It appears, according to him that if the District INspector of Schools do not have such power to induct such member in that event the induction of such members cannot be said to be done within the election process. He relies on a judgment of Division Bench (unreported) dated 21 -5 - 1987 given in writ petition No. 10666 of 1987 where on the facts that the District INspector of Schools had taken a view that he was appointed for the purpose of managing the affairs of the INstitution but he was not substituted for the Managing Committee or the General Body of the Association was held as correct view. He also relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Damayanii Naranga v. Union of INdia, AIr 1971 SC 966 and contended that no member can be inducted except with the consent of the members of the voluntary Association as that of the present one.;