V. N. Khare, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have come up before this court against the order dated 30th August, 1988, passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Meerut.
(2.) THERE is an institution known as ' Kisan Adarsh Intermediate College, Raunda, District Bulandshahr ' (hereinafter referred to as " Institution "). This institution is recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education Uttar Pradesh and is run and managed by a Committee of Management constituted under duly framed Scheme of Administration for the institution. The previous Committee of Management of which Raghuraj Singh was the President and shish Ram Singh, petitioner no. 2 was the Manager, was elected and constituted on 27th of, June, 1985. The term of the previous Committee of Management expired on 27th June 1988. The petitioners claim that election for constituting the Committee of Management of the institution was held on 24th June, 1988 and they are the validly elected Committee of Management entitled to run and manage the affairs of the institution inasmuch as they are in actual control of the affairs of the institution ; whereas respondent no. 3, Kripal Singh claims that in fact election for constituting the Committee of Management for the institution was held on 30th June, 1988 and he was elected Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution and the said Committee of Management is in actual control of the affairs of the institution. Both petitioner no. 2 and respondent no 3 sent the proceedings of their respective meetings to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr for attesting their signatures as Manager of the Committee of Management entitled to run and manage the affairs of the institution. Since two parallel Committees of Management set their claim, there arose a dispute as to which of the two Committees of Management is validly elected and in actual control of the affairs of the institution. Under such circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr referred the dispute to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Meerut for decision. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, on receipt of the reference, called upon the respective parties to file their representations along with evidence which they desired to rely in support of their cases. The Regional Dy. Director of Education, after considering the case of the respective parties, found that the Committee of Management of which Raghuraj Singh is the President and respondent no. 3, Kripal Singh, is Manager, is the duly elected Committee of Management and also in effective control of the affairs of the institution, and, therefore, by the impugned order recognised the said Committee of Management. Aggrieved, against this order, the petitioners have filed this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners firstly urged that the affidavits of the Principal and Head Clerk of the institution relied upon by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in holding that the Committee of Management of which respondent no. 3 is the Manager, is legally elected Committee of Management of the institution, were inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the impugned order is patently erroneous. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners requires determination as to whether the affidavits filed by the Principal and Head Clerk of the institution were inadmissible in evidence in proceedings before the Regional Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (7) of section 16-A of U. P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to quote sub-section (7) of section 16-A, which runs as follows : - " (7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Ditector of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise : Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing. Explanation-In determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances. " Section 1 of Evidence Act provides that the Act is applicable to all judicial proceedings in or before a court. A perusal of the sub-section quoted above discloses that the proceedings before the Regional Deputy Director of Education while making enquiry for finding out as to which Committte of Management is in effective control of the institution, is not a judicial proceeding in or before a Court. Sub-section (1) of the Evidence Act further provides that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the affidavits presented to the court or officers. Thus the provisions of the Evidence Act will not apply to the validity or admissibility of the affidavit that may be filed before the Regional Deputy Director of Education in proceedings under sub-section (7) of section 16-A of the Act. The Regional Deputy Director of Education is required to comply with the requirement of the relevant statutory provisions as also to observe the principles of natural justice. The authority is entitled to proceed on the basis of representations of the parties and the affidavits which may not be strictly admissible in evidence under the provisions of the Evidence Act. An affidavit which is not admissible in evidence under the provisions of the Evidence Act may be accepted as evidence. We are of the opinion that the provisions of the Evidence Act will not apply to validity or admissibility of the affidavit that may be filed before the Regional Deputy Director of Education in proceedings under sub-section (7) of section 16-A of the Act. In the present case the Principal of the institution and the Head Clerk had filed affidavits to the effect that the election for constituting the Committee of Management wherein respondent no. 3 was elected as Manager, was held within the premises of the institution. The said affidavits cannot be said to be inadmissible in evidence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the reliance placed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on the affidavits of the Principal and Head Clerk of the institution, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the argument of the learned counsel must be rejected.
(3.) THE second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not apprised of the affidavits of the Principal of the institution filed by respondent no. 3 along with his representation and, therefore, were denied reasonable opportunity before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. THE learned counsel relied upon a decision of this court in Annapurna Uchachattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gurvalia v. Deputy Director of Education, VII Region Gorakhpur, 1982 Education Cases 146 in support of his argument. As seen above, the proceeding under sub-section (7) of Section 16-A of the Act is no doubt a summary proceeding but the Regional Deputy Director of Education is required to adopt such a procedure in which requirements of the principles of natural justice are satisfied. Rules of natural justice require that any document filed by a party which is sought to be relied upon by the party concerned, must be apprised to the other party. In case the documents have been filed by one party in presence of the other party, the Regional Deputy Director of Education is not required, on its own, to supply copy of the said document to the other party. It is for the other party either to inspect the document or request for copies of those documents on payment of necessary charges. Of course if at any later stage or at the back of one party, the other party files certain document or evidence, the Regional Deputy Director of Education necessarily has to apprise the other party of the filing of the said document by the other party. It is not the requirement of the principles of natural justice that the Regional Deputy Director of Education on his own should give copies of all the evidence filed by one party to the other party if the evidence has been filed in presence of the other party or the other party is aware of the evidence filed by the other party vice versa. In the present case, the Regional Deputy Director of Education directed both the parties before him to file their respective representations and documentary evidence in support of their cases. Respondent no. 3 in his representation referred to the affidavit of the Principal and also annexed the same with it. The petitioners were aware of the affidavit of the Principal filed by respondent no. 3 and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were denied opportunity before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Assuming, copy of the affidavit annexed with the representation was not given to the petitioners, they could have either requested for inspection of the document or applied for a copy of the said affidavit on payment of necessary charges. The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his argument is distinguishable. In the said case three documents relating to the requisition of meeting were relied upon by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. These documents were filed after the date of filing of the representation as well as the documents. These documents were not referred to in the representation made by the respondents in the said writ petition and were filed at later stage at the back of the petitioner. Further, those requisitions were not even filed along with the counter-affidavit to the writ petition. These documents were never apprised to the petitioner in the said writ petition which were made basis for holding in favour of the respondent. In that context it was held that since the petitioners were not apprised of those documents, the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education was illegal. In view of the above, we reject the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners.;