S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) BOTH these petitions arise out of the order dated 25.11.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut in purported compliance of the judgment and order dated 11.1.1995 of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 903 of 1995. The Petitioner -Committee of Management in one petition is the contesting Respondent in the other. The dispute between the parties, in Writ Petition No. 36148 of 1995 pertains to the validity of the Committee of Management constituted on the basis of election held on 10.7.1994 and recognised by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 8.12.1994 and the question involved in the other writ petition is whether the Scheme of Administration of the College stood amended as proposed vide resolution dated 21.3.1994 passed by the outgoing Committee of Management in pursuance of direction contained in the letter dated 4.2.1994 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the negative view of the question expressed in the impugned order is erroneous.
(2.) MINIMAL facts necessary to highlight the controversy and to appreciate the questions herein involved may be stated as below: (a) Janta Inter College, Bhopa, Muzaffarnagar is a recognised institution governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The college has its own Scheme of Administration as approved under Section 16A of the Act and other related provisions thereof including the IIIrd Schedule, the Scheme of Administration provides for constitution of Committee of Management by periodical elections and It is the Committee of Management so constituted periodically that is vested with the authority to manage the affairs of the institution. (b) The Scheme of Administration as approved by the Deputy Director of Education visualised three -year term for the Committee of Management constituted in accordance with the Scheme with a further stipulation that the office bearers of the Committee of Management would be entitled to continue for a period of one month next after expiration of its three -year term and if during this period a new Committee of Management is not constituted, the term of the outgoing Committee of Management would automatically come to an end by efflux of time and a Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by Regional Deputy Director of Education would, thereafter, take over the management of the College. (c) The Committee of Management which was constituted on the basis of the election held on 24.3.1991 received its approval/ recognition by the District Inspector of Schools on 27.3.1991. Its three -year term came to an end on 26.3.1994. But before expiration of its term, it had initiated the process of election on 11.2.1994 for constitution of new Committee of Management and had in fact fixed 17.4.1994 for filing nominations and 24.4.1994 for poll, if necessary. However, it so happened that no nomination papers were received on the scheduled date, i.e., 17.4.1994 and the Election Officer rejected the nomination papers which were received after due date. Consequently, due to force majeure constitution of the new Committee of Management could not take place within the stipulated period but no one was appointed as Prabandh Sanchalak to take over the management of the institution and the outgoing committee was not only allowed to manage and conduct the affairs of the College but permitted by the District Inspector of Schools to hold the election on 10.7.1994 as per revised schedule in presence of the observer sent by him and the District Administration. The submission made by Sri V. M. Zaidi, counsel appearing for Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 36146 of 1995 (hereinafter called Pi) is that the outgoing Committee of Management had no authority to hold the election and the Committee of Management constituted as a result of the election organised by the out -going Committee of Management and held on 10.7.1994 is liable to be Invalidated. in other words. Sri Zaidi urged that the business transacted in the meeting of the general body held on 10.7.1994 was liable to be Invalidated as the meeting was called by the office bearers of the out -going Committee of Management whose term had already expired. Sri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2931 of 1996 (in short P 2) urged, on the other hand, that the Committee of Management had every authority to organise and hold election of new outgoing Committee of Management within three years and six months of its term pursuant to Scheme of Administration as it stood amended vide resolution dated 21.3.1994 passed by the Committee of Management in compliance with the general direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut vide letter dated 4.2.1994. In rejoinder Sri V. M. Zaidi urged that the proposed amendment of the Scheme of Administration providing for six months' extension in the term of the Committee of Management with the assent of the Regional Deputy Director of Education and another six months with the assent of the Regional Additional Director of Education for the purpose of constitution of a new Committee of Management would not be deemed to have been brought about in that it was never approved by the "Director of Education" nor was the Scheme actually amended on the basis of the resolution dated 21.3.1994.
(3.) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, I am of the considered view that albeit resolution No. 3 passed by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 21.3.1994 proposing aforesaid amendment in paragraph 8 of the Scheme of Administration was fairly well in tune with the general directions issued by the "Regional Deputy Director of Education" vide letter dated 4.2.1994 but no amendment was actually made in the Scheme of Administration pursuant to the said resolution nor could it be made unless approved by the Director of Education in that Sub -section (5) of Section 16A of the Act clearly provides that "no amendment to or change in the Scheme of Administration shall be made at any time without prior approval of the Director." The word "Director" as defined in Section 2(aaa) of the Act includes, for the purpose of Section 3, "Additional Director" and is quite distinct from the "Regional Deputy Director of Education" - - -a term defined in Section 2(dd) of the Act. The argument that prior approval of the Director of Education would not be necessary in the instant case inasmuch as the amendment was sought to be made by the Committee of Management on the basis of general directions issued by the "Regional Deputy Director of Education" vide letter dated 4.2.1994 is quite off the mark and cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that any change or alteration in the Scheme of Administration requires prior approval of the "Director of Education" and not of the "Regional Director of Education". Had the amendment been made pursuant to any direction issued by the "Director of Education", the position would have been different. There is neither any allegation nor any proof of the fact that the proposed amendment was ever sent to the "Director of Education". That apart, the amendment as proposed vide resolution No. 3 dated 21.3.1994 does not appear to have been incorporated in the Scheme of Administration and, therefore, the resolution is of no avail to P 2 and the Regional Deputy Director of Education was right in holding that in the absence of prior approval by the Director of Education, the Scheme could not have been amended.;