# College, Bulandshahr and others v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1509
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71377 of 2011
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/college-bulandshahr-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-42092
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Amendment in Scheme of administrationwhether can be made retrospectively or
prospectively?
Held-considering
two
conflicting view of Division Bench-matter
referred to Larger Bench.

Held: Para 11

 In view of the two conflicting views of the
Division Benches of this Court, I am of the
opinion that the matter should be referred
to the Larger Bench for decision on the
following two questions:-

(1) Whether the amendment will
become effective from the date of the
amendment?
And

(2)
Whether
the
amendment,
extending the term of the committee of
management, will apply to the existing
committee of management, which has
made the amendment or it applies to the
committee of management which will be
formed after the election being held after
the amendment?
Case law discussed:
Special Appeal No. 1709 of 2007, in the case of
Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter
College, Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P.
and others; 1994 (24) ALR 410; (2000) 2
UPLBEC 1107

## Text

3 All] C/M Saltnat Bahadur Post Graduate College and another V. State of U.P. and others
1509
appointment in primary schools in large
number are running from pillar to post
and hence harassed. Hence, the petitioners
are also entitled to cost which is
quantified to Rs.10,000/-.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71377 of 2011

C/M Saltnat Bahadur Post Graduate
College and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Secy. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.D. Shukla
Sri Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri A.K. Singh

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Amendment in Scheme of administrationwhether can be made retrospectively or
prospectively?
Held-considering
two
conflicting view of Division Bench-matter
referred to Larger Bench.

Held: Para 11

 In view of the two conflicting views of the
Division Benches of this Court, I am of the
opinion that the matter should be referred
to the Larger Bench for decision on the
following two questions:-

(1) Whether the amendment will
become effective from the date of the
amendment?
And

(2)
Whether
the
amendment,
extending the term of the committee of
management, will apply to the existing
committee of management, which has
made the amendment or it applies to the
committee of management which will be
formed after the election being held after
the amendment?
Case law discussed:
Special Appeal No. 1709 of 2007, in the case of
Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter
College, Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P.
and others; 1994 (24) ALR 410; (2000) 2
UPLBEC 1107

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J. )

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
petitioners. Sri G.K. Singh appears on
behalf of respondent no.4 and Sri A.K.
Singh on behalf of respondent no.2.
Learned Standing Counsel appears on
behalf of respondent no.1.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the
present petition, are that there is a Society,
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, in the name of Saltanat Bahadur
Degree College Association, Badlapur,
Jaunpur. It has its own bye-laws. The said
Society has established a Post Graduate
Degree College in the name of Saltanat
Bahadur Post Graduate College at Badlapur,
Jaunpur. The said College is affiliated with
Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University,
Jaunpur and is governed by the provisions
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
Under the bye-laws of the Society and the
College, the term of the committee of
management was three years. The last
election of the committee of management
was held on 3.3.2008. In the said election,
Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh was elected as the
President and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh as the
Manager. The said election has been duly
approved by the Vice Chancellor of the
University by the order dated 6.5.2008. The
approval was accorded to the committee of
1510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
management for the period of three years
from the date of holding of the election.
There is no dispute in this regard.

3. By an agenda notice dated
30.6.2010, a meeting of the general body of
the Society was scheduled to be convened
on 25.7.2010. The meeting was held on
25.7.2010. In the meeting, it was decided
that an amendment in the bye-laws of the
Society by specifying the term of the
committee of management to five years in
place of three years be made. In pursuance
thereof,
the
amendment
has
been
incorporated in the bye-laws and the
amended bye-laws has been submitted
before
the
Assistant
Registrar.
The
intimation of the amendment for approval
was given to the Vice Chancellor of the
University. The Vice Chancellor by his
order dated 16.11.2010 directed that the
committee of management elected on
2.3.2008 stood recognised for the period of
five years, that is, till 1.3.2013.

4. Subsequently, a complaint was filed
by one Sri Prakash Singh and Shiv Shanker
Singh Om before the Vice Chancellor of the
University, disputing the extension of the
term of the committee of management from
three years to five years. The Registrar of
the University issued a notice dated
7.6.2011 to the petitioners. The said notice
was followed by a reminder dated 3.8.2011.
The petitioners filed the reply dated
8.8.2011.

5. It appears that Shiv Shanker Singh
Om and others filed Writ Petition No.
49556 of 2011 before this Court. Said writ
petition was disposed of on 30.8.2011 with
the direction to the Vice Chancellor to take
a final decision in pursuance of the notice.
As a consequence thereof, the University
issued a notice on 18.10.2011 fixing
31.10.2011 as the date for hearing before
the Vice Chancellor. The petitioners filed
the objection dated 24.10.2011. After
hearing the parties, the Vice Chancellor
passed
the
impugned
order
dated
16.11.2011/25.11.2011.

6. The Vice Chancellor relying upon
the decision of a Division Bench of this
Court, passed in the Special Appeal No.
1709 of 2007, in the case of Committee of
Management, Arya Kanya Inter College,
Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P.
and others, has held that the benefit of
amendment in Clause 8 of the scheme of
administration will not be available to the
existing committee of management, which
has amended the bye-laws and the amended
Clause 8 will be applicable to the newly
formed committee of management after the
election and observed that the letter dated
16.11.2010 stands amended to this effect.
The order of the Vice Chancellor, dated
16.11.2011, is impugned in the present
petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that once the Vice Chancellor has
accepted the term of the existing committee
of management from three years upto
1.3.2013, he has no power to review its own
order. He submitted that the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Committee of Management, Arya Kanya
Inter College, Bulandshahr and others vs.
State of U.P. and others (supra) was on
different facts. It was with regard to a
dispute
under
the
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1971 and in the said
decision, the order of the approval of the
amendment with the condition that the same
would
apply
to
the
committee
of
management, which would be constituted
after the election being held after the
amendment in the bye-laws, has been held
3 All] C/M Saltnat Bahadur Post Graduate College and another V. State of U.P. and others
1511
justified. The decision of the learned Single
Judge of this Court in other cases is also of
the same effect. He submitted that once the
amendment has been made in the bye-laws,
it became effective from the date of the
amendment and is, therefore, applicable to
the existing committee of management also.
Reliance is placed on the decision of a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Committee of Management, MMI Inter
College, Bijnore vs. Deputy Director of
Education and others, reported in 1994
(24) ALR 410 wherein it has been held that
the amendment introduced in the existing
scheme of administration takes effect
immediately.
Although
it
is
not
retrospective in operation, but the term of
the committee has to be calculated in
accordance with it. He submitted that till
date said decision has not been over-ruled.
He also placed reliance on the decision of
the learned Single Judge in the case of
Committee
of
Management,
Baheri
Education Society, Baheri, Bareilly and
others vs. Director of Education and
others, reported in (2000) 2 UPLBEC
1107.

8. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent no.4, submitted that the
decision of the Division Bench of this
Court, in the case of Committee of
Management, Arya Kanya Inter College,
Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P.
and others (supra), has categorically laid
down the law in Paragraph 30 of the
judgment
that
the
committee
of
management,
which
is
elected
in
accordance with the provisions of the
scheme of administration must be permitted
to continue only for the term, which was
applicable at the time of the election. The
extension of the term, so provided by
seeking permission of its own term and by
suggesting amendments in the scheme of
administration cannot be approved of by
this Court. Therefore, the order of the Vice
Chancellor is legally correct. He submitted
that in the case of Committee of
Management, MMI Inter College, Bijnore
vs. Deputy Director of Education and
others (supra), the term of the committee of
management has been curtailed, which was
against their own interest and on this
background, the Division Bench has held
that the term of the existing committee of
management has to be calculated in
accordance to the amendment.

9. I have considered the rival
submissions and various decisions referred
by both the sides.

10. In my view, there is a conflict of
opinion between the two Division Benches.
Whether by the amendment, the term is
curtailed or enhanced is not relevant. The
relevant question is from which date, the
amendment becomes effective and whether
it applies to the existing committee of
management or to the committee of
management, which will be formed after the
next election. The Division Bench of this
Court, in the case of Committee of
Management, MMI Inter College, Bijnore
vs. Deputy Director of Education and
others (supra), has categorically held that
the amendment introduced in the existing
scheme takes effect immediately. Although
it is not retrospective in operation, but the
term of the committee of management has
to be calculated in accordance with it. To
the contrary, the Division Bench of this
Court, in the case of Committee of
Management, Arya Kanya Inter College,
Bulandshahr and others vs. State of U.P.
and others (supra), has held as follows:-

"Even otherwise, we feel that it is
appropriate and it is fitness of things that the
1512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Committee of Management, which is
elected in accordance with the provisions of
the scheme of administration must be
permitted to continue only for the term,
which was applicable at the time of the
elections. The extension of the term so
provided by seeking permission of its own
term and by suggesting amendments in the
scheme
of
administration
cannot
be
approved of by this Court..."

11. In view of the two conflicting
views of the Division Benches of this Court,
I am of the opinion that the matter should be
referred to the Larger Bench for decision on
the following two questions:-

(1) Whether the amendment will
become effective from the date of the
amendment?

And

(2) Whether the amendment, extending
the term of the committee of management,
will apply to the existing committee of
management,
which
has
made
the
amendment or it applies to the committee of
management which will be formed after the
election being held after the amendment?

12. Let the papers be placed before
Hon'ble The Chief Justice for formation of
the Larger Bench.
---------