- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The order dated 4-9-1996 by which the nomination of the petitioners were cancelled, was under challenge. By an interim order dated 13-9-1996 the operation of the said order has been stayed. The respondents have filed application for vacating the said interim order.
(2.) SRI Haidar Hussain, learned Coun sel for the petitioners contends that the order dated 4-9-1996 was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, the said order is bad. Secondly, he says that the petitioners name were duly recommended by the Dis trict Inspector of Schools in terms of para-6 of the Scheme of Administration, on the basis of suggestions made by the Manager. The said names were sent to the Deputy Director of Education, by the District In spector of Schools by letter dated 10th May, 1996. Relying on para 6 of the Scheme of Administration he contends that the petitioners were duly nominated in terms of the Scheme of Administration. Learned Counsel for the respon dents on the other hand contends relying on para 3 of the Scheme of Administration that the name of five persons interested in education or educationist are to be recom mended by the District Inspector of Schools alongwith notice for holding the election. Out of the said five names recom mended, the Deputy Director of Educa tion, shall nominate three members in terms of para 6 of the Scheme of Ad ministration. According to him paras 3 and 6 are to be read together. Therefore, subsequent sending of the names on the basis of suggestion of the Manager by let ter dated 10th May, 1996 can not be sus tained. Therefore, the order dated 4-9-1996 is legal and valid. Learned Standing Counsel sup ports the contentions of the learned Coun sel for the respondents and submits that there is no scope for the Manager to make any recommendation either to the District Inspector of Schools or to Deputy Direc tor of Education. Therefore, according to him the impugned order is legal and valid and the interim order cannot be sustained.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties it appears that in terms of para 3 of the Scheme of Administration the name of the person interested in education or educationist, recommended by the District Inspector of Schools, ought to be sent alongwith notice of election. In terms of para 6 of the said five recom mended name three members are to be nominated by the Deputy Director of Education. The nomination is therefore, made on the basis of recommendations of the District Inspector of Schools. A plain reading of the said provision of the Scheme of Administration which is Annexure-2 to the petition, as translated at the bar, does not postulate any scope for suggestion or recommendation by the Manager either to the District Inspector of Schools or to the Deputy Director of Education. The said provision has been incorporated to enable the Education authorities of the State to represent itself. Therefore, there is no scope for any suggestion by the Management of any name. It is an independent provision enabling the Government authorities to have its representation in the Management. Then again the District Inspector of Schools has no option but to Recommend five names out of which three persons are to be nominated so as to enable the Deputy Director of Education to have a scope of choice from amongst five names. The District Inspector of Schools, cannot act on the basis of suggestion of the Manager. According to the reading of the Scheme of Administration, recommenda tion can be made only by the District In spector of Schools. There is no scope for suggestion by the Management about the name of the persons to be nominated by the authorities. In that event it would be giving lever to the management itself and the provision for nomination by the authorities would stand frustrated.;