Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri N.L. Pandey for respondents No. 5 and 6. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit.
(2.) Saraswati Inter College, Peepalhera, Kakrala, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar is a recognized institution under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921(for short 'the Act'). The institution is governed by an approved Scheme of Administration as stipulated by Section 16-A of the Act. Under Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration, the term of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the institution is three years with a grace period of one month, after which, in case election is not held, a person appointed by Regional Deputy Director of Education would act as Authorised Controller with duty to hold fresh elections. As per statement made by learned counsel for the parties, sometimes in the year 2011, an amendment was carried out in Clause 8 and thereby, the term of the Committee of Management was enlarged from three years to five years. In an election of the Committee of Management of the institution held on 01.06.2008, respondent No. 6 was elected as Manager. The said election was recognized by District Inspector of School by an order dated 20.11.2008. At the expiry of the term of the said Committee in December, 2011, three set of elections were set up, but none of which was approved. In consequence, the District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 06.01.2012, directed for single operation of the accounts of the institution followed by an order passed by the Joint Director of Education on 26.07.2012 appointing an Authorized Controller. Thereafter, fresh election of the Committee of Management was held on 07.07.2013, in which respondent No. 6 was again elected as Manager. The Committee elected on 07.07.2013 was recognized by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 16.07.2013, and as a consequence whereof, respondent No. 6 worked as Manager for second successive term. The next election, as per the provisions of the amended Scheme, fell due in the year 2018. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 both filed their nominations for the post of Manager. It seems that petitioner No. 2 as well as petitioner No. 1, who is member of the general body, filed objections before the Election Officer as well as before District Inspector of Schools against nomination of respondent No. 6 on the post of Manager on the ground that under Clause 6(8) of the Scheme of Administration, no office bearer is entitled to contest third successive election, for the same post. The District Inspector of Schools, by letter dated 09.07.2018 called for a response from respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 submitted his response and pleaded that after the term of the Committee elected in the year 2008 expired in December, 2011, an Authorised Controller came to be appointed in the institution and he managed the institution till fresh election was held on 07.07.2013. According to him, although, he was again elected in the said election, but since in between the election held in the year 2008 and 2013, an Authorised Controller managed the institution for almost a year, therefore, the bar contained under Clause 6 (8) would not apply. However, District Inspector of Schools without deciding the objection, proceeded to the pass the impugned order dated 18.07.2018 according recognition to election held on 08.07.2018 and also attested the signatures of respondent No. 6 on the post of Manager. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Clause 6(8) and Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration, which are relevant to the controversy, read thus:-;