J.M.L.Sinha, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this case is an educational institution for teaching girls for the High School and Intermediate examinations of the termediate Education Board of U. P. THE institution is managed under a Scheme of Administration framed under Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter to be called the Act). Paragraph 20 of that Scheme, translated in English, is as follows. EMERGENCY PROVISION: (1) When the State Government is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it impossible to properly carry on the administration of the institution in the normal manner, it may appoint an administrator- Provided that no such administrator shall be appointed except: (a) on the recommendation of the committee, or (b) on the recommendation of the Director of Education after allowing the President an opportunity to submit a written explanation against the said recommendation. (2) Upon such appointment being made the committee and all its office-bearers shall stand suspended and all their powers and functions shall vest in the administrator except that the administrator shall not have the authority to take loan for or on behalf of the society/ institution or to transfer any immoveable property thereof. (THE remaining sub-paragraphs of para. 20 are not material)."
(2.) PURPORTING to act under the aforesaid paragraph the State Government (hereafter called respondent No. 1) issued a notice on 31st August, 1971, to the President of the Committee of Management of the institution to show cause why, for the reasons stated therein, the Government should not appoint an administrator. On 13th September, 1971, the President sent his reply. By an order dated 20th December, 1971, however, the Government appointed the District Inspector of Schools (hereafter called respondent No. 2) to be the administrator, who took over charge of the institution on 23rd December, 1971. The petition challenges the appointment of the administrator on the ground, inter alia, that para. 20 of the Scheme of Administration of the institution, under which the respondent No. 1 acted to appoint respondent No. 2 to be the administrator, is ultra vires of the Act, and, therefore, non-existent. Some other grounds have also been stated in the writ petition, but since they were not pressed, it is not necessary to refer to them. The petition first came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who found that there was some conflict of views on the point in issue in two decisions of this Court viz., Adarsha Kannya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kanpur v. State of U. P., (1971 All LJ 1311) : (AIR 1972 All 133) decided by B.N. Lokur, J., and Writ Petition No. 3273 of 1970: D. A. V. Inter College Board, Meerut v. State of U. P., (decided by C.D. Parekh, J., on 10-12-1970) (All). In the former case B. N. Lokur J., held that para. 20 of the Scheme of the Administration (which is identical to para. 20 of the Scheme of Administration in the instant case) was ultra vires and outside the scope of Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act. In the latter case C.D. Parekh, J., held that Section 16-D of the Intermediate Education Act did not apply to cases where there was dispute regarding the persons constituting the managing committee, and in such cases an order appointing an administrator could be passed under para. 31 (which corresponds with para. 20) of the Scheme of Administration. Obviously, if paragraph 31 of the Scheme of Administration is ultra vires of the Act, the State Government could not act or appoint an administrator thereunder. In view of this conflict, the learned Single Judge referred the case to a larger Bench, and it is thus that the case has come up before us. In view of the contentions raised before us, the only question for consideration is whether paragraph 20 of the Scheme of Administration of the petitioner institution is repugnant to the Act and could not be acted upon by the Government to appoint an administrator of the petitioner institution.
(3.) SECTION 16-A of the Act enjoins that there shall be a Scheme of Administration for every institution. It further requires that the Scheme of Administration shall, amongst other matters, provide for the constitution of a committee of management vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. Sub-section (6) of SECTION 16-A, which deserves particular notice, reads as under:- "Every recognised institution shall managed in accordance with the Scheme of Administration framed under and in accordance with sub-section (1) to sub-section (5) of SECTIONs 16-B and 16-C." On the language used in sub-section (6) of Section 16-A it is clear that the Scheme of Administration must be under and in accordance with sub-section (1) to sub-section (5) of that section and Section 16-B and Section 16-C. In other words, the Scheme of Administration cannot provide for anything which falls outside the scope of the aforesaid provisions of the Act.;