- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In these two writ petitions, the same order dated 24th March, 1995 has been challenged by two sets of petitioners. In Writ Petition No. 10168 of 1995 one Dina Nath Pandey sought to espouse the cause of Janta Shikasha Niketan Inter College, Duberi, Mau, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said College') seeking to represent the Committee of Management of the said College as Manager thereof with one Sri Yogendra Singh as President all of whom have joined together as petitioners. Whereas one Mangal Deo Pandey has sought to espouse the case of the said College and represented the Committee of Management as Manager of the said College. The facts of the case are common in both the peti tions which would be apparent from the description thereof given herein after.
(2.) THE case as made out in writ petition No. 10168 of 1995, inter alia, is that the said College is a recognised Institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and is run by a Committee of Management appointed by the General Body of 352 members according to the Scheme of Administration. THE last election had taken place on 4th October, 1992 and the office bearers were elected on 28th February, 1993 while all the papers relating thereto were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools, DIGS for short, on 3rd March, 1993 but no order having been passed by the DIGS, the said Mangal Deo Pandey had moved Writ Petition No. 19132 of 1993 in which by order dated 26th May, 1993 (Annexure 4), the DIGS was directed to take appropriate steps on the basis of the papers submitted before him and permit the petitioner to continue by way of an interim arrangement whereas Mangal Deo Pandey had claimed that the election had taken place on 14th April, 1993 by 54 members and the DIOS had decided the case in favour of Mangal Deo Pandey by order dated 14th September, 1993. THE said order was challenged in Writ - Petition No. 36698 of 1993 in which by order dated 8th February, 1995, the DIOS had directed to refer the dispute to the Regional Deputy Director Education, RDDE for short. In Special Appeal No. 735 of 1995 filed by Mangal Deo Pandey by order dated 2nd March, 1995, the RDDE was directed to decide the validity of the election. Upon the matter being so referred, the RDDE, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 24th March, 1995 (Annexure 5) rejected the validity of both the Committee of Management and appointed DIOS, Mau to hold fresh election within 3 months and directed that the list of members used in the election held on 4th October, 1992 and 14th April, 1993 shall be considered as valid and 7 life members may also be taken as members of the General Bodies. In Writ Petition No. 15099 of 1995, it has been contended that the Registration of the Society Janta Shiksha Niketan, Duberi, Mau, under the Societies Registration Act was valid till 1995. The Society appointed Sri Mangal Deo Pandey as Manager of the Committee known as Sahayak Samiti of the said Trust running several Institutions including Janta Shiksha Niketan Inter College, Duberi, Mau which is governed by a separate Scheme of Administration duly approved by the DDE which provided for the management of the Institution by the Committee of Management being an executive body elected by the General Body. It was contended that the Trust in an entirely different body having 352 members who elect a Sahayak Smiti which manages the affairs of the Trust and the Sahayak Samiti has no concern with the management of the entire College and the members of the General Body of the Trust are not automatically members of the General Body under Scheme of Administration of the entire College. The elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were periodi cally held in 1985, then in 1988 and the same was due in 1991 when due to some confusion and dispute, the meeting of the Trust was convened and the members exercising power under sub-clause (1) of clause 6 of the of the Scheme of Administration passed a resolution that since no election was held in 1991, therefore, the said Mangal Deo Pandey shall continue to function as Manager of the Institution. The Scheme of Administration provides the Trust with special function in the event non-holding of elections of the Committee of Management. Since no election had taken place, the DIOS by letter dated 27th January, 1993 (Annexure 4-A) asked Mangal Deo Pandey to get the election held since the term of the earlier Committee had expired. Thereupon on 14th April, 1993, election was convened in the presence of all the 54 members in which the Executive Com mittee was appointed and the proceeding of the said election was forwarded to the DIOS. Since the said 352 members are members of the Trust and not of the General Body for the purpose of running the Institution under the Scheme of Administration, by order dated 14th September, 1993 (Annexure 6), recognition was granted to the Committee of which Mangal Deo Pandey was the Manager. It is contended that the rival Committee claimed to have held election on 4th October, 1992 and 28th February, 1993 when there was no provision for holding two elections for one Committee in the Scheme of Administration. The election held on 4th October, 1992 was that of the Society and not of the Committee of Management of the College. The impugned order dated 14th September, 1993 which was chal lenged by Mangal Deo Pandey in Writ Petition No. 36689 of 1993 was stayed by order dated 27th March, 1993 till 15th October, 1993 against which the resultant Special Appeal was disposed of by order dated 2nd March, J995 holding the dispute as one under Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and directed the RDDE to decide the dispute relat ing to the election of the Committee of Management after hearing both the parties. Mr. S. N. Srivastava in support of Writ Petition No. 10168 of 1995 on behalf of Mangal Deo Pandey contends that no election had taken place after the Scheme of Administration was approved in 1988 and, therefore, Mangal Deo Pandey cannot claim to be the Manager of the said Institution nor he could have held any election as such of the Committee of Management after the expiry of the life of the earlier Committee of Management as admitted by Mangal Deo Pandey in para graph 4 of Writ Petition No. 15099 of 1995. He further contends that Mangal Deo Pandey had claimed to have held the election in the presence of 54 members who were enrolled on 22nd March, 1993 and 23rd March, 1993 while the decision to hold election by Mangal Deo Pandey was taken on 14th March, 1993 and then again the subscription of membership was deposited in the personal account of Mangal Deo Pandey and not in the account of the said College. Mr. Srivastava had challenged the said order dated 24th March, 1995 (Annexure 5) so far as it rejects the election held on 4th October, 1992 and claims recognition of the election of the Committee of Management held on 4th October, 1992 and 28th February, 1993. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Padia in support of Writ Petition No. 15099 of 1995 attacks the entire order dated 24th March, 1995 so far as it interferes with the functioning on Mangal Deo Pandey as Manager and directing the DIOS to work as authorised Controller and holding fresh election.
(3.) HOWEVER, in the course of his argument, Mr. S. N. Srivastava altered his position and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there being rival claims with regard to the election which was directed to be decided pursuant to the order dated 2nd March, 1995 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Appeal No. 735 of 1995, the RDDE had rightly decided the same that there was no valid election and, therefore, had rejected both the claims sought to be established by both the parties and had correctly appointed the DIOS as authorised Controller and had correctly directed the DIOS to hold the election. Mr. R. G. Padia, on the other hand, very strenuously argued that the scope of the decision as directed in the said order dated 2nd March, 1995 passed in Special Appeal No. 735 of 1995 clearly indicated that the RDDE was directed to decide the dispute in terms of Section 16-A (7), the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Therefore, the impugned decision dated 24th March, 1995 is to be tested on the anvil of the interpretation of Section 16-A (7) as given by this Hon'ble Court in various decisions. According to him, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 16-A (7), the RDDE has to see as to who is in executive management of the Institution and while deciding the same though he cannot incidentally go into the question of election but still he can neither convert himself to an Election Tribunal or a Civil Court for the purpose of deciding the election dispute. He further contends that an election dispute cannot be looked into under Section-16-A (7) except incidentally. The expres sion 'incidentally' with relation to Section 16-A (7) has been interpreted to mean that the RDDE is concerned only to find out that a rank outsider is not allowed to run the show. He cannot go into the question of validity as such. If while deciding such question, the election is considered as the main issue then the same is wholly without jurisdiction. In support pf his claim, he relied on the decisions Km. Leela Paulus v. R. D. D. E. , Garhwal Region, Garhwal, 1995 UPLBEC 241 : 1995 (1) LBESR. 110 (All) ; Sankatha Prawd Srivastava v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, 1985 (2) UPLBEC 751 ; Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalaya Shukartal (Junior High School) Morna, Muzaffarnagar v. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, 1985 (2) UPLBEC 1053 ; Committee of Management, Kisan Uchchatar Madhyantik Vidyalaya v. District Inspector of Schools, Agra, 1985 (2) UPLBEC 1128 ; Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Inter College, Deoria v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1019 ; Committee of Management, Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalya v. Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi, 1992 (1) UPLBEC 327 ; Committee of Management, Sanhitkari Inter College, v. Deputy Director of Education, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 590 ; Committee of Management, Shahid Mangal Pandey Inter College v. State of U. P. , 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1348 ; and Committee of Management, Sri Ram Niranjan Inter College v. Deputy Director of Education, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 928.;