- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : THEre is a girls institution Tiwari Jwala Prasad Kanya Inter College, Etawah. THE College runs classes for High School and Intermediate for the purpose of preparing them for the examinations held by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad. THE institution is managed under a Scheme of Administration framed under section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 20th December, 1971, the Joint Secretary (Administration) appointed the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah, as the Administrator. This appointment was purported to have been made under Clause 20 of the Scheme of Administration. This order appointing the Administrator was challenged by means of a writ petition no. 1366 of 1972, Prabandh Samiti, Tiwari Jwala Prasad Arya Kanya Inter College, Etawah v. State of U. P. and others. THE petition was, ultimately, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 25th March 1976. It was held by the Division Bench that Para 20 of the Scheme of Administration is inconsistent and repugnant with the provisions of the Act and, accordingly, it should be treated as non-existent and outside the scope of Section 16-A of the Act. THE petition was, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 20th December, 1971, by which the Administrator was appointed, was quashed. After the order appointing the Administrator was quashed by this Court, the Deputy Secretary (education) passed an order on 26th October, 1978, purporting to be an order under section 16-D (4) of the Act appointing an Authorised Controller. This order dated 26th October, 1978, was again challenged in this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 9514 of 19/8. In that writ petition, an application was made for staying the operation of the order appointing the Authorised Controller. THE application for stay was rejected by this Court. THEreafter, the State Government has been passing one order after another continuing the term of the appointment of the Authorised Controller in the institution. THE last order before filing the present petition was an order dated 2nd May, 1986. THE petitioner, consequently, has challenged the order dated 2nd May, 1986, appointing the Authorised Controller. This order was to remain effective till 26th October, 1986. THE present petition was filed in this Court on 10th July, 1986. During the pendency of the petition, the State Government again extended the appointment of the Authorised Controller by an order dated 4th October, 1986; hence the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the writ petition and the order dated 4th October, 1986, was also to be challenged. This order dated 4th October, 1986, extending the term of the Authorised Controller till 26th April, 1987, has also been challenged. The main bone of contention in the present petition is whether the Scheme of Administration having a Red Cover was the Scheme of Administration, which was applicable to the institution, or whether the Scheme of Administration having a green cover was applicable.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the Scheme of Administration having a red cover was the first Scheme of Administration and the Scheme of Administration having a green cover was a subsequent amended Scheme of Administration. The difference between the two Schemes was that under the original Scheme, the members of the Arya Sabha, tsaya Shahr, Etawah, were authorised to elect the members of the Committee of Management while under the Scheme of Administration with green cover, the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, was authorised to elect a Committee of Management from amongst its members. In effect, under the First Scheme, it were the local members of the Arya Sabha, Naya Shahr Etawah who were called upon to administer the College while under the amended Scheme, it were the members of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Uttar Pradesh, who were called upon to administer the College. In paragraph 8 of the petition, it has been categorically stated that the District Magistrate, Etawah held an enquiry as to which Scheme was applicable to the institution. The enquiry was held through the City Magistrate, Etawah, who, after hearing all concerned and after looking into the records, reported that the Principal Smt. Shakuntala Yadav committed a fraud and replaced the original Scheme of Administration under red cover by a Scheme of Administration under a green cover changing the main provision in regard to the person authorised to elect the Committee of Management in order to make the election impossible. After this enquiry was conducted, the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 8th May, 1981, approved the Scheme of Administration under red cover. This order dated 8th May, 1981, has been annexed as Annexure '8' to the writ petition.;