- (1.) One Hazi Yasin, had moved Writ Petition No. 23615 of 1998 challenging the election of committee of management of Janta Inter College Sultanpur, district Haridwar held on 29-6-1998 on the ground that the election was illegally and irregularly held and that the said election was objected to by him before the District Inspector of Schools. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 24-7-1998 by directing the D.I.O.S. to pass appropriate reasoned order on the objection of the petitioner within a period of 15 days. Despite the said order having been communicated to the D.I.O.S., while granting recognition to the committee of management elected in the election held on 29-6-1998, the objection of said Haji Yasin was not attended to, and overlooking the objection so raised, recognition was granted by the D.I.O.S. illegally. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 Bashir Ahmad filed Writ Petition No. 24599 of 1998 alleging that the recognition granted to the committee of management of the said school pursuant to the election held on 29-6-1998 was invalid since it has not considered the objections raised by Haji Yasin. The said Writ Petition No. 24599 of 1998 was disposed of by an order dated 31-7-1998 with an observation that if the petitioner approaches the Joint Director of Education, Meerut with his representation, in that event, in his administrative capacity, the Joint Director shall decide the same after hearing both the parties taking into consideration the materials that may be placed before him. Accordingly, the representation of Bashir Ahmad was disposed of by an order dated 29-10-1998, by the Joint Director. By the said order dated 29-10-1998 while cancelling the recognition of the committee of management granted on 23-7-1998 by the D.I.O.S., the Joint Director had held the election invalid and had also recommended appointment of authorised controller, who may, after finalising the member-list, hold afresh election within three months for constituting the committee of management. This order has since been challenged by the committee of management through its Manager - Israr Ahmad in the present writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said decision is wholly outside the scope and ambit of Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He further contends that in exercise of the power conferred on the Joint Director since used to be designated as Regional Deputy Director of Education formerly, under Rule 16(8) of the Education Code, does not extend to declare an election invalid, which otherwise could not be gone into even under Section 16A(7) which permits only incidental examination of validity of the election. If the situation is not permitted under Section 16-A(7), the same cannot be bye-passed by virtue of the power conferred on him permitting only general supervision under Rule 16(8) which cannot be utilised to the extent to contradict the powers conferred by the Act itself. By means of framing rules, the scope and ambit of the Act cannot be stretched to the extent to frustrate the purpose of the scheme postulated in the Act itself. He next contends that even if it is assumed that four members were debarred from participating in the election, even then it would not have affected the outcome of the election in view of the votes polled by the respondent No. 4 who participated in the election itself. Mr. Shashi Nanda had also drawn my attention to the relevant materials in support of his contention and had relied on some decisions to strengthen his contentions.
(3.) Mr. P.C. Srivastava assisted by Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, relying on a few decisions contended that by reason of the power conferred under Rule 16(8) of the Education Code, the Joint Director may examine validity of the election and can go into the said question in the cases where there is any irregularity in holding the election even in the absence of any rival committee on the objection raised by an individual member since there is not other alternative remedy available to such aggrieved member. He also contends that if the election is held illegally and irregularly, in that event, it is immaterial where members were prevented from participating in the election, that it would materially affect the result of the election or not. Inasmuch as according to him, election is a democratic process. Deprivation of democratic right of one of the members in fact destroys the inherent principles of the democracy lying behind holding of election which cannot be ignored. He also points out that such objection was raised before the D.I.O.S., but the D.I.O.S. having ignored the same, it is only the Joint Director, having supervisory powers by reason of Rule 16(8) of the Education Code, who can very well look into the same question. He also relies on some decisions of this Court.;