- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. By an order dated 11-11-1992 passed in Writ petition No. 3873 of 1991, the order dated 28-1-1991 by which the District Inspector of Schools refused to recognise the election held on 23-8-1989, was set aside and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide the controversy within three months. In the said order it was recorded that Sri S. C. Budhwar learned counsel, had informed the court that an election had taken place in December, 1991 and one Sri Mahencra Singh is function ing as Manager. The said election was held on 25th December, 1991, which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3890 of 1992. It was further observed that if upon deciding it is found by the District Inspector of Schools that the election held on 23-8-1989 is valid then the election held on December 1991 is also valid. Pursuant to the said directions contained in the said Order dated llth November, 1992 passed by this Court the District Inspector of Schools had decided the controversy, wherein he found that the election dated 23rd August, 1989 and the election held on 25th December, 1991 were not to be recognised on the basis of affidavit of Kartar Singh, the Election Officer, who informed that he did not hold any election. By Order dated 27th March, 1993 passed by the District Inspec tor of Schools pursuant to the order dated 1i-11- 1?92 the order dated 30-12-1991 recognising the elections held on 25-12-1991 was set aside. It was further observed that the Deputy Director of Education may appoint Authorised Controller for getting the election of the Committee of Manage ment conducted at the earliest. English translation of the said order, as furnished in the written argument, of the said order dated 27-3-1993, filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, appears to have been passed after thorough discussion. Thereafter by an order dated 30-6-4993 Sri Suraj Pal Sharma, was appointed as Authorised Controller of the said institution, who took over charge on 15-7-1993, which is the admitted position. The order dated 11-11-1992 passed in Writ petition No. 3873 of 1991 governed Writ Petition No. 3890 of 1992 by reason of the order passed of the same date in the said writ petition. By an order dated 11-8-1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 24273 of 1994, in which the order dated 11-5-1994 and the order dated 27-6-1994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, under which the respondents No. 4 and 5 were restrained from functioning as the Committee of Management of the institution, were challenged and the controversy was directed to be decided by the Deputy Director of Education, as to whether any election had taken place on 25-7-1993. In the meantime admittedly there was no Committee of man agement till 27 3-1933 in respect of the said institution as has been held in the said order dated 27-3-1993, filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. This order has not been challenged nor correctness of the situation, has been disputed by either of the parties-
(2.) IT alleged that election of the Committee of Management had taken place on 25-,-1993, which was the subject-matter in the order dated li-8-1994 passed in Writ Petition No, 24273 of 1994. The said order specifically directed the Deputy Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut, himself to decide the tame after giving opportunity to the con tending parties. Upon quashing the said- impugned order dated 11-5-1994 to record finding as to whether election of the Committee of Management could have been held on 25-M993 or was held. In the facts and circum stances of the case it was felt necessary to go into the said question in the said case despite decision laying down the scope and ambit of Section 16-A (7) of the IL P. Intermediate Education Act, which did not apply in the present case, according to Sri Avun Tandon since there was no rival Com mittee of Managements lodging any claim. Be that as it may, the said order has been accepted and has not been challenged by either of the parties. Pursuent to the said order the Deputy Director of Education had decided the question in terms of the said order dated 11-8-1994 by order dated 31-12-1994, filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, IT is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, very ably assisted by Sri S. P. Shukla, submits that the order of Deputy Director of Education, is wholly perverse and has not been infact, passed in terms and spirit of the order dated 11-8-1994. He has, in fact, not dealt with the question, as to whether any election could have been held on 25-7-1993, in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has drawn my attention to the relevant facts by referring to various annexures filed along with the writ petition, which will be referred to at the time of discussion of the matter, hereinafter. Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respon dent, on the other hand vehmentally argued that the said order can not be interfered with because of the ratio decidandi in the case of Scheoraj Singh v. Deputy Director of Education, arising out of S. L. P. (Civil) Nos. 18066-67 of 1993 decided by the Apex Court, that such matter should be left with the education authorities and the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with it. He further contends that one Sri Kartar Singh, who was appointed as Election Officer on 13-3-1991 and that his appointment has never been set aside or recalled. Since the said Kartar Singh, by affidavit, which has been mentioned in the order dated 27-3- 1993, informed that he had never held election afresh, his appointment continued and his right to hold election cannot be superseded even by the subsequent developments or the order passed in this matter. According to him, the said Kartar Singh can held election after obtaining approval from the District Inspector of Schools. Because of such approval the election held by him, has assumed the character of regular election held by the Election Officer and, therefore, cannot be questioned. According to the Scheme of Administration, election is to be held by the Presiding Officer, namely, the Election Officer, appointed being Sri Kartar Singh and not by the Autho rised Controller. It is the District Inspector of Schools, who appointed the Presiding Officer. The approval given by the District Inspector of Schools amounts to giving appointment or by implication he has concurred with the functioning of Sri Kartar Singh, as the Presiding Officer and had ratified the order dated 13-3-1991. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the election held by Sri Kartar Singh, and that has been so found rightly by the Deputy Director of Education in the impugned order dated 31-12-1994, filed as Annexure 25 to the writ petition.
(3.) AFTER having heard the rival contentions the admitted position appears that by order dated 27-3-1993 it was found that two earlier elections were held to be invalid or non-recognizable and that there was no Committee of Management between the interengdum period and fresh election was to be held. It is also admitted position that by order dated 27-3-1993 the District Inspector of Schools had observed that election should be held and the Deputy Director of Education may appoint Autho rised Controller for holding such election. The Authorised Controller was appointed after the said order dated 27-3-1993 by an order dated 30-6-1993, which is Annexure S to the Writ petition. Admittedly, the Authorised Controller had taken over the charge on 115-7-1993, which fact has also not been disputed by either of the parties. Admittedly, no steps were taken for holding election or for appointment of the Presiding Officer by the Authorised Controller. Admittedly, Sri Kartar Singh on the alleged strength of the order dated 13-3-1991 appointing him as Presiding Officer, for holding election, had sought approval of the District Inspector of Schools, for holding election by letter dated 10-6-1993. The same was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by an endorsement on the said letter, which has been filed as Annexure DA 5 to the counter-affidavit, on 14-6-1993. Annexure CA 5-A to the counter-affidavit is the Election Schedule alleged to have been published in the newspaper. No date as to when the said election schedule was published in the newspaper, has been either specified in the said annexure or in the counter-affidavit. From the said Election schedule it appears that different stages for holding election were said to be held on the dates specified against each items in the said Schedule beginning from 13-7- 1993 and ending on 25-7-1993. Thus it appears that the said election had taken place under the supervision of Sri Kartat Singh with the approval of District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, even before the appointment of the Authorised Control ler. The Authorised Controller was appointed on 306-1993, whereas approval was obtained by letter dated 10-6-1993 and approval was given on 14-9-1993. The Authorised Controller took over charge en 15-7-1993, whereas the Election Schedule purported to have started from 13-7-1993.;