- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The question of recognising the Committee of Manage ment of Jagdamba Shiksha Samiti, Malsil Gulzargaaj, District, Jaunpur was granted by the Vice-Chancellor, pursuant to a direction by this Court on 22-1-1995 passed in writ petition No. 4743 of 1995 whereby the Vice-Chancellor was directed to consider the representation in accordance with law. On 15-8-1988 election had taken place and thereafter next election took place on 15-8-1991. The Committee of Management so elected in the said election was recognised by the Vice-Chancellor in favour of respondent No. 3. Thereafter the election had taken place on 14-8-1994 as claimed by the respondent No. 3. The petitioners now claimed to have held election on 17-9-1994. By the impugned order dated 17-1-1996 being Annexure-18 to the writ petition, the Vice-Chancellor had come to a finding that there is no dispute on the ground that the petitioner No. 2 is not a member of the general body and, therefore, he had granted recognition to the Committee of Management elected at the behest of respondent No. 3. It is this order which has been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) SHRI Anil Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and P. N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 raised preliminary objection that in view of Section 68 of the State Universities Act, the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of existence of adequate alternative remedy as provided in the said section. The next contention that was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are that in view of Statute 12-07 of the University, it. is the Vice-Chancellor, who can decide the dispute with regard to election of office bearers and while deciding so if the Vice-Chancellor finds that there is no dispute in that event the provision contained in the Statute 12. 28 is not attracted and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. As such the same comes within the ambit of Section 68 of the State Universities Act. Sri D. S. M. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand, contends that the provision of Section 68 of the Act cannot operate as the total bar, particularly, when the order appears to be wholly without jurisdiction. According to him as soon there is a dispute the matter is covered under Statute 12. 28. According to him Statute 12-07 is subject to Statute 12. 28 of the University. Even in the garb of deciding as to whether there is any dispute or not, the Vice-Chancellor is not empowered to decide the same inasmuch as according to him, Statute 12. 28 does not empower the Vice-Chancellor even to decide to that extent. Therefore, according to him the order being wholly without jurisdiction the same can be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Both the learned counsel for the parties have relied upon several decisions in support of their respective contentions, which I shall be dealing shortly hereinafter.
(3.) AS contended by Sri Anil Tiwari learned counsel for the University that such recognition is granted by reason of the definition of 'management' as contained in Section 2 (13) of the State Universities Act which defines 'management' in relation to an affiliated or associated college means "the managing committee or other body charged with managing the affairs of that college and recognised as such by the University. "the Vice-Chancellor of the University by reason of the said definition recognises the committee of management, as provided in the Statutes. It appears that provision for granting recognition is governed by the Statutes. Statute 12. 07 makes a provision that the constitution of the management of every college in order to obtain affiliation should provide for certain conditions, as enumerated in Statute 12. 0/. Clause (f) contained therein provides that, "if any question arises whether any person has bee n duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member or office bearer of the management or whether the management is legally consti tuted, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor shall be final. ";