# Committee of Management, Inter College Sarsena and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1276
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-11-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66226 of 2010
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-inter-college-sarsena-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-41768
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921-
Section 16 A (7) Power of DIOS order of
Single Operation-under impression the
management is not validly elected-No
such scope under payment of salary Actheld-Order totally without jurisdictionexcept regional Committee (in view of
G.O. 19.12.2000)-DIOS has no role to
play.

Held: Para 8

So far as the reason for passing of the
order of single operation accounts is
concerned, the same appears to be under
the impression that there are no valid
elections and the petitioner - Committee
is not entitled to function. The aforesaid
exercise by the District Inspector of
Schools has been done in a manner as if
the District Inspector of Schools was
authorized to decide the question of
validity of elections as claimed by the
petitioner or otherwise. The continuance
of a Committee of Management either
under a valid election or even otherwise
vis-a-vis its effective control can be gone
into only under the provisions of Section
16 (A) (7) of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 after recording
findings with regard to effective control.
This power is to be exercised by the Joint
Director of Education and now under the
Government Order dated 19.12.2000
such disputes have to be processed
through the Regional Level Committee.
To that extent, the District Inspector of
Schools appears to have exceeded in his
jurisdiction and the learned counsel for
the respondents, therefore, concede on
this count that the matter ought to have
been referred to the Regional Level
Committee in stead of the District
Inspector of Schools himself taking a
decision.
Case law discussed:
1993 ALJ 318.

## Text

1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
It is expected that Hari Prakash Tiwari
will extend all possible cooperation in
conclusion of the aforesaid enquiry.

29. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66226 of 2010

Committee of Management, Inter College
Sarsena and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitiner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri S.K. Singh Paliwal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Siddharth Verma
Sri G.S. Mishra
C.S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921-
Section 16 A (7) Power of DIOS order of
Single Operation-under impression the
management is not validly elected-No
such scope under payment of salary Actheld-Order totally without jurisdictionexcept regional Committee (in view of
G.O. 19.12.2000)-DIOS has no role to
play.

Held: Para 8

So far as the reason for passing of the
order of single operation accounts is
concerned, the same appears to be under
the impression that there are no valid
elections and the petitioner - Committee
is not entitled to function. The aforesaid
exercise by the District Inspector of
Schools has been done in a manner as if
the District Inspector of Schools was
authorized to decide the question of
validity of elections as claimed by the
petitioner or otherwise. The continuance
of a Committee of Management either
under a valid election or even otherwise
vis-a-vis its effective control can be gone
into only under the provisions of Section
16 (A) (7) of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 after recording
findings with regard to effective control.
This power is to be exercised by the Joint
Director of Education and now under the
Government Order dated 19.12.2000
such disputes have to be processed
through the Regional Level Committee.
To that extent, the District Inspector of
Schools appears to have exceeded in his
jurisdiction and the learned counsel for
the respondents, therefore, concede on
this count that the matter ought to have
been referred to the Regional Level
Committee in stead of the District
Inspector of Schools himself taking a
decision.
Case law discussed:
1993 ALJ 318.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. This petition has been preferred by
the Committee of Management through
Rajendra Singh as Manager of Inter College
Sarsena, Sachuee, District Mau, assailing an
order dated 18.10.2010 whereby the District
Inspector of Schools has proceeded to
revoke the proposal of suspension of
Respondent No.5 - Shiv Sahai Singh
claiming himself to be the Head of the
Institution. The District Inspector of
Schools has simultaneously imposed an
order of single operation of accounts under
Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Act No.24 of 1971
Act.

2. The petition has been heard with
the assistance of Sri Siddharth Verma for
the respondent No.5 and learned Standing
3 All] Committee of Management, Inter College Sarsena and another V. State of U.P. and others 1277
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who
have stated at the Bar that they do not
propose to file a counter-affidavit in view of
the nature of the order that is proposed to be
passed.

3. Sri Khare, at the very out set on
instructions received, contends that the
present writ petition is confined to a
challenge to the order imposing the single
operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of
the U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 Act. The
petitioner proposes to challenge the other
part relating to the matter of suspension
before the appropriate Bench. Accordingly,
this writ petition is confined only to the
extent of the order being impugned in
relation to the single operation of accounts.

4. Sri Khare submits that the
signatures of the petitioner were attested
and countersigned by the District Inspector
of Schools in 2008. The respondents dispute
this position and contend that no such
signatures have been attested pursuant to
any election held in the year 2008.

5. After having heard learned counsel
for the parties and in view of the submission
advanced, it is evident that earlier also the
District Inspector of Schools invoked the
powers under Section 5 (1) of the U.P. Act
No.24 of 2971 Act on 9.3.2010 to impose
single operation of accounts. The same was
assailed in Writ Petition No.14201 of 2010
and it was allowed on the ground that the
order had been passed without giving any
notice or opportunity. Subsequently, the
District Inspector of Schools again repeated
his performance by passing an order on
12.7.2010 and the underlying theme of both
the orders were that the petitioner is not the
validly elected and recognized Committee
of Management. On the second occasion
also, this Court passed an interim order on
21.7.2010 in Writ Petition No.42061 of
2010 which is still in operation.

6. This is the third occasion when the
District Inspector of Schools has resorted to
Section 3 (3) of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 in
order to impose single operation of
accounts. Sri Khare submits that the
aforesaid action of the District Inspector of
Schools clearly amounts to malice in law
inasmuch as once the earlier order founded
on the same cause under Section 5 (1) of the
U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 Act had been stayed
by this Court then there was no occasion for
the District Inspector of Schools to have
resorted to a similar action in order to
impose Section 3 (3) of the 1971 Act.

7. The aforesaid argument appears to
be correct. Learned counsel for the
respondents has been unable to indicate any
justification for passing of the said order in
the manner in which it has been done by the
District Inspector of Schools. The scope and
powers to be exercised by the authorities is
to be strictly within the four corners of
default of the management in relation to
payment of salary only. For reference, see
Committee
of
Management,
Sahid
Sansmaran Inter College, Sherpur and
another Vs. Deputy Director of Education,
Varanasi and another, 1993 ALJ 318.

8. So far as the reason for passing of
the order of single operation accounts is
concerned, the same appears to be under the
impression that there are no valid elections
and the petitioner - Committee is not
entitled to function. The aforesaid exercise
by the District Inspector of Schools has
been done in a manner as if the District
Inspector of Schools was authorized to
decide the question of validity of elections
as claimed by the petitioner or otherwise.
The continuance of a Committee of
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Management either under a valid election or
even otherwise vis-a-vis its effective control
can be gone into only under the provisions
of Section 16 (A) (7) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 after
recording findings with regard to effective
control. This power is to be exercised by the
Joint Director of Education and now under
the Government Order dated 19.12.2000
such disputes have to be processed through
the Regional Level Committee. To that
extent, the District Inspector of Schools
appears to have exceeded in his jurisdiction
and the learned counsel for the respondents,
therefore, concede on this count that the
matter ought to have been referred to the
Regional Level Committee in stead of the
District Inspector of Schools himself taking
a decision.

9. I have perused the order of the
District Inspector of Schools, who has
proceeded to assess the validity of the
elections. The finding is that no permission
was taken from the District Inspector of
Schools for holding of the alleged elections
as claimed by the petitioner. It is, therefore,
clear that the District Inspector of Schools
while proceeding to pass an order has
entered into the question of validity of the
election
set
up
by
the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the order impugned dated
18.10.2010 insofar as it relates to the single
operation of accounts under Section 3 (3) of
the U.P. Act No.24 of 1972 Act is
concerned, is unsustainable. It is hereby
quashed leaving it open to the District
Inspector of Schools to refer the matter to
the Regional Level Committee for decision
afresh in the light of the observations made
herein above.

10. In case such a request is made by
the District Inspector of Schools, the
Regional Level Committee shall proceed to
resolve the dispute as expeditiously as
possible but not later than 3 months from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order before it.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66949 of 2010

Shri Ram Narayan Pandey
 ...Petition
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Upadhyay
Sri Piyush Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Revision of
Subsistence
allowance-petitioner-after
conviction
under
7/3
prevention
of
corruption
Act-during
pendency
of
appeal-granted
bail-unless
conviction
set-a-side not entitled for relief claimed.

Held: Para 8

In our opinion, a person convicted on
charges of corruption should not be
allowed to continue in service until his
conviction is set aside by appellate court.
The High Court in appeal has not stayed
the conviction of the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
[2007 SCC 574], [(2001) 6 SCC 594], [(2001)
7 SCC 231], [(2007) 1 SCC 673].