# Committee of Management Janta Inter College & Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 1
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No.1943 of 2013
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Cj. Sanjay Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-janta-inter-college-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42879
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Section-16-A(2)(b)-Amendment in scheme
of administration-become effective only
after approval of director-the term of
management extended from three year to
five
year-benefit
of
extended
period
available only those management who got
elected after approval-the management
running prior to amended scheme of
administration-can not avail the benefit of
extended period-appointment of authorized
controller as well as the view taken by
Learned Single Judge-held-proper-appeal
dismissed.

Held: Para-14
For these reasons, we have arrived at a
conclusion that the learned Single Judge
was not in error in declining to interfere
with the order passed by the Joint Director
of Education. Besides, in either view of the
matter, it has now been clear that since
the election was held on 17 December
2008, even the extended term of five years
has come to an end. Consequently, there is
no warrant for interference in the special
appeal.

Case Law discussed:
2013(5)
ADJ
326(FB);
1994(24)
ALR
410;2008(10) ADJ 698.

## Text

1 All] Committee of Management Janta Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA
YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, CJ.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Special Appeal No.1943 of 2013

Committee of Management Janta Inter
College & Anr. Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Lakshmi Kant Trigunait

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri S.P. Singh

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Section-16-A(2)(b)-Amendment in scheme
of administration-become effective only
after approval of director-the term of
management extended from three year to
five
year-benefit
of
extended
period
available only those management who got
elected after approval-the management
running prior to amended scheme of
administration-can not avail the benefit of
extended period-appointment of authorized
controller as well as the view taken by
Learned Single Judge-held-proper-appeal
dismissed.

Held: Para-14
For these reasons, we have arrived at a
conclusion that the learned Single Judge
was not in error in declining to interfere
with the order passed by the Joint Director
of Education. Besides, in either view of the
matter, it has now been clear that since
the election was held on 17 December
2008, even the extended term of five years
has come to an end. Consequently, there is
no warrant for interference in the special
appeal.

Case Law discussed:
2013(5)
ADJ
326(FB);
1994(24)
ALR
410;2008(10) ADJ 698.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, J.)

1. This special appeal seeks to impugn
the correctness of an order of the learned
Single Judge dated 13 November 2013.

2. By the judgment under challenge,
the learned Single Judge dismissed a
petition seeking the setting aside of an order
dated 16 July 2013 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools and an order dated 24
July 2013 of the Joint Director of
Education. The Joint Director of Education
has directed the appointment of an
Authorised Controller in the institution of
the appellants on the expiry of the term of
the Committee of Management. The
appellants conduct a recognized institution
upto the Intermediate level, which receives
grant-in-aid from the State Government.
The
institution
is
governed
by
the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. The Committee of
Management was elected on 17 December
2008. The District Inspector of Schools on
15 January 2009 attested the signature of
the second appellant as Manager. On 23
November
2001,
the
Committee
of
Management passed a resolution adopting a
new scheme of administration by which the
term of the Committee of Management was
enhanced from three years to five years.
The Joint Director of Education by an order
dated 8 December 2011 approved the
resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management.

3. The case of the appellants was
that
though
under
the
scheme
of
administration, as originally envisaged,
the term of the Committee of Management
2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(which had been elected on 17 December
2008) would come to an end on 16
December
2011,
by
virtue
of
the
amendment which has been approved by
the Joint Director of Education, the existing
Committee of Management was entitled to
continue until 16 December 2013. The
appellants were aggrieved because the
District Inspector of Schools by his order
dated 16 July 2013, recommended the
appointment of an Authorised Controller to
the Joint Director of Education on the
ground that the three years' term of the
existing Committee of Management had
come to an end as well as by the order of
the Joint Director of Education appointing
an Authorised Controller.

4. The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act 1921 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') governs and regulates the
affairs of the institution in question. The
institution is a recognized Intermediate
College within the meaning of Section 2
(b) of the Act. Under Section 16-A of the
Act, it has been envisaged that there shall
be a scheme of administration for every
institution which shall, amongst other
things, provide for the constitution of a
Committee of Management which is
vested with the authority to manage and
conduct the affairs of the institution. Subsection (5) of Section 16-A of the Act
requires that the scheme of administration
of every institution shall be subject to the
approval
of
the
Director
and
no
amendment to or change in the scheme of
administration shall be made at any time
without the prior approval of the Director.
Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A of the
Act provides that every recognized
institution
shall
be
managed
in
accordance
with
the
scheme
of
administration framed under and in
accordance with sub-section (1) to subsection (5) and Sections 16-B and 16-C.
The regulations which have been framed
under the Act inter alia, deal with the
scheme of administration. Regulation 14
provides the principles on which approval
to a scheme of administration shall be
accorded. Amongst them, in clause b is
the
procedure
for
constituting
a
Committee of Management and the term
of its office.

5. A circular was issued by the
Director of Education on 4 August 2003.
The circular relates to the enhancement in
the
term
of
the
Committee
of
Management from three years to five
years. By this circular, the Director
prescribed that besides requiring the
resolution of the general body, the
enhanced term from three years to five
years will take effect in respect of the
elections which are held after the
amendments have been approved. In other
words, the circular of the Director
envisages
that
the
benefit
of
the
enhancement of the term from three years
to five years will not enure to the
Committee of Management which had
been elected prior to the amendment of
the scheme of administration. Hence, the
benefit of the enhanced term would not be
available
to
the
Committee
of
Management, which had passed the
proposal for enhancing the term.

6. A Full Bench of this Court in
Committee
of
Management,
Saltnat
Bahadur
Post
Graduate
College,
Badlapur, Jaunpur and another Vs. State
of U.P. & Others1 was constituted in
order to resolve a conflict between two
decisions of the Division Benches of this
Court. These judgments of the Division
Benches were in (i) The Committee of
Management,
M.M.I.
Inter
College,
1 All] Committee of Management Janta Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
3
Bijnor Vs. Dy. Director of Education,
10th
Circle
and
others2;
and
(ii)
Committee of Management, Arya Kanya
Inter College, Bulandshahar and another
Vs. State of U.P. and Others 3.

7. The learned Single Judge in that
case had referred the following two
questions for determination by the Full
Bench:

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

(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?

The Full Bench held on the first
question that an amendment to the scheme
of administration will become effective
from the date of the amendment. The
second question which was referred for
decision was answered as follows:

"The second question is answered by
holding that the amendment, extending or
curtailing the term of the Committee of
Management,
will
become
effective
immediately and as a result, then existing
Committee shall have its term extended or
modified
in
accordance
with
the
amendment. We may add here by way of
precaution that if the authority competent
to make the amendment itself chooses to
specify that the amendment shall be
effective from a future date then the
amendment shall apply from such later
date as may be specified. Similarly, if the
approving authority has the necessary
powers to lay down similar stipulation,
then the amendment may apply as per
conditions or stipulations laid down by
the approving authority. In absence of
such special feature or stipulation, the
amendment shall apply to the Committee
of Management existing on the date
amendment comes into force."

8. Now before we consider the
impact of the judgment of the Full Bench,
it would be necessary to note that the case
which was referred to the Full Bench
involved the application of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973 since the petitioner
before the Court was a Committee of
Management of a Post Graduate College,
which was governed by the Act and by
the Statutes of the University. The Full
Bench considered the correctness of the
view which was taken by the Division
Bench of this Court in Committee of
Management, Arya Kanya Inter College
(supra). The judgment of the Division
Bench in Committee of Management,
Arya
Kanya
Inter
College
(supra)
involved the elections of the Committee
of Management in respect of an institution
which
was
governed by
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The
Division Bench in that case took note of
the circular which was issued by the
Director of Education on 4 August 2003.
The Division Bench was of the view that
since the Director of Education had
clarified that where by an amendment of
the
scheme
of
administration,
the
enhancement in the term of the elected
office bearers is approved, this would take
effect only in respect of the Committee of
Management of which election is held
subsequent to the date of the resolution
proposing the amendment in the scheme
of administration. The view of the
Division Bench was that since under sub-
4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
section (5) of Section 16-A of the Act an
amendment to or change in the scheme of
administration requires the prior approval
of the Director, the powers of the Director
would include within its ambit all
ancillary powers for the effective exercise
of the powers conferred in the statutory
provisions. Hence, in the view of the
Division Bench, the Director had the
competence to impose such conditions
while approving the amendment as may
be fair and just. In that context, the
Division Bench held as follows:-

"We, therefore, arrive at a conclusion
that the Director of Education, while
approving the amendments in the scheme of
administration, is entitled to impose fair and
just conditions. It is within his competence
to provide that if any existing Committee of
Management seeks amendments in the
clause provided for the term of the elected
office bearers (in the facts of the present
case 3 years to 5 years), then while
approving such amendments in the scheme
of administration, it is always open to the
Director of Education to provide that such
extension of term (3 years to 5 years) would
be applicable only in respect of Committee
of
Management,
which
is
elected
subsequent to the date of resolution of the
Committee of Management proposing
amendment. Such condition imposed by the
Director of Education cannot be said to be
arbitrary and unfair. The condition so
imposed would be within his statutory
competence and within the framework of
the power as conferred by Section 16-A (5)
of 1921 Act.

9. Moreover, in the view of the
Division Bench, it was open to the
Director, in whom the power to grant his
prior approval has been vested by Section
16-A (5) of the Act, to issue guidelines by
way of a circular, which would bind the
Regional Joint Directors of Education
who are only his delegatees. The issuance
of such circular was in the view of the
Division Bench necessary so that all the
Regional Joint Directors of Education
should act in an uniform manner. In that
context, the Division Bench made the
following observations:

"As already recorded above, power to
approve the amendments in the scheme of
administration continues to be that of the
Director and the Regional Joint Directors of
Education are only delegatees, who in fact
exercise the power of the Director only.
There are large number of Regional Joint
Directors of Education in the State of Uttar
Pradesh appointed for various regions; it is
well within the competence of the Director
(principal authority) to issue circulars/letters
for regulating the exercise of power to
approve the amendments in the scheme of
administration by the delegatees in an
uniform manner. Such circulars requiring
the delegatees to act uniformally, while
approving the amendments in the scheme of
administration has the effect of treating all
similarly situate persons in similar manner
and at par. It further obviates the chances of
different orders being passed by the
different
delegatees,
Regional
Joint
Directors of Education in respect of similar
proposals seeking amendments in the
scheme of administration qua extension of
the terms of the elected Committee of
Management. Such circular or letter of the
Director is therefore, in furtherance of his
principal power to approve the amendments
in the scheme of administration and for
ensuring that delegatees, while approving
the
amendments
in
the
scheme
of
administration treat all similarly situate
Committee of Managements in the same
manner."
1 All] Committee of Management Janta Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
5

10. Now it is necessary to note that in
the judgment of the Full Bench, the decision
of the Division Bench in Committee of
Management, Arya Kanya Inter College
(supra) was not disapproved. What the Full
Bench held was that certain observations
contained in one of the paragraphs of the
judgment in Committee of Management,
Arya Kanya Inter College were an obiter
dicta and did not constitute a precedent.
Those observations which have been
specifically referred to in paragraph 13 of
the reported judgment of the Full Bench are
to the following effect:-

"Even otherwise, we feel that it is
appropriate and it is fitness of things 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
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."

It was in this view of the matter that
the Full Bench held that there was really
no divergence of opinion on the principles
which have been enunciated in the two
earlier Division Bench judgments.

11. In the present case, the learned
Single Judge has held that in view of the
circular which has been issued by the
Director of Education on 4 August 2003,
any amendment in the scheme of
administration of the institution for
extending the term by two years, would
be applicable to the term of office of the
newly elected Committee of Management
after the election is held on a date
subsequent to the date on which the
proposal for extending the term of office
is accepted by the Joint Director of
Education. The Director of Education had
in fact, in the present case, clarified by a
communication dated 3 December 2012
that the enhancement of the term of the
Committee of Management from three
years to five years will not enure to the
benefit of the existing Committee of
Management which has been elected
before the resolution for the enhancement
of the term has been passed and would
apply to the Committee of Management
which would be constituted after the
elections were held afresh.

12. On behalf of the appellants, it has
been submitted that the learned Single
Judge while taking note of the judgment of
the Full Bench and of the earlier decision of
the Division Bench in Committee of
Management, Arya Kanya Inter College
(supra) has lost sight of the fact that in the
case before the Division Bench the approval
which was granted by the Joint Director of
Education contained a specific provision to
the effect that the benefit of the extended
term will entail to the Committee of
Management of which elections were held
subsequent to the date of approval. In the
present case, it was submitted that the Joint
Director of Education while approving the
amendment did not impose any such
stipulation and hence, the enhancement of
the term must also enure to the benefit of
the existing Committee of Management.

13. It is not possible to accept the
submission for more than one reason.
Firstly, as the judgment of the Full Bench
now holds, if the approving authority has
the power in law to lay down a stipulation
that an amendment shall be effective from
a future date, then the amendment would
apply in accordance with the condition or
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stipulation laid down by the approving
authority. In the absence of any such
special
feature
or
stipulation,
the
amendment shall apply to the Committee
of Management existing on the date on
which the amendment comes into force.
Applying this observation in the context
of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921, it is clear that sub-section (5) of
Section 16-A of the Act requires the prior
approval of the Director to every
amendment or change in the scheme of
administration. Since the Director is
vested with a statutory power to grant or
refuse his prior approval, incidental to the
exercise of power, it is open to the
Director to stipulate that the approval
shall not enure to the body which has
proposed
by
a
resolution,
the
enhancement of the term. Secondly, the
Director has, by his circular of 4 August
2003, clarified the matter beyond doubt
by stipulating that when the term of a
Committee of Management is enhanced
from three years to five years by an
amendment
in
the
scheme
of
administration,
the
benefit
of
the
amendment will enure only to the
Committee of Management that would be
elected after fresh elections are held. As a
Division Bench has held in the Committee
of
Management,
Arya
Kanya
Inter
College (supra), such a provision has been
made by the Director in his circular to
ensure that all the Joint Directors subject
to his control who act as his delegates
should follow a uniform approach in
dealing with such cases. Otherwise, there
would be a grievance of discriminating
treatment if the amendments are approved
in the case of certain institutions with
immediate effect giving a benefit of an
enhanced term to the existing Committee,
while in respect of other Committees the
enhancement of term would apply only to
the bodies elected in future. Clearly, the
Director of Education who is vested with
the statutory power under Section 16-A
(5) of the Act has the power to impose
such a condition that ensures even handed
treatment. If the Director himself decides
every case, it would be open to him to
impose such a stipulation on a case by
case basis in every case. However, since
the power of the Director is delegated to
the Joint Directors, he has made general
stipulations to that effect, which must
have equal force. The object is clear and it
is to ensure that the enhancement of the
term of a Committee of Management does
not become a method of merely seeking
continuance in office by the bodies of the
existing Managements. Thirdly, there is
no reason to hold that there has been any
change in this position by the issuance on
25 August 2011 by the State Government
of a model scheme of administration.
Clearly, despite the circular of the State
Government dated 25 August 2011
providing for a model scheme of
administration, it has been envisaged that
the Managements of the concerned
institutions would have to bring their
schemes of administration in line with the
model scheme. That would not, in any
manner, affect the statutory powers which
have been conferred upon the Director
under Section 16-A (5) of the Act.

14. For these reasons, we have
arrived at a conclusion that the learned
Single Judge was not in error in declining
to interfere with the order passed by the
Joint Director of Education. Besides, in
either view of the matter, it has now been
clear that since the election was held on
17 December 2008, even the extended
term of five years has come to an end.
Consequently, there is no warrant for
interference
in
the
special
appeal.
1 All] Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
7

15.
The
special
appeal
shall,
accordingly, stand dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24620 Of 2013

Indrapal Singh... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Bhanot, Sri J.K.S. Sikarwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Meaning of
word 'family'-whether
brother residing
separately-having no concern with-other
brother, mother, sister etc-can be family
member interpretation given in Ram Murti
case-held correct Law and the condition
having together taking food from common
kitchen-applicable to any other member.

Held: Para-55
In view of this, the definition of family
which includes brother cannot be read in
a fashion to exclude brother from
defined family members and throw him
and club him in the category of any other
member, who has been staying together
and has been dining together, in view of
this, the said portion of the Ram Murat's
Case (supra) is not being approved of.

Words and Phrases-work family used in
clause 2(o) of U.P. Sheduled commodities
Distribution order 2004-shall not override
the definition contained in para 4.7 of G.O.
03.07.1990.
Held: Para-53
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that
there is no conflict whatsoever in between
the provisions of Clause 2 (o) Clauses 30
and 31 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities
Distribution Order, 2004 vis.a.vis with the
definition
of
"family"
as
given
in
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990
paragraph 4.7 and the Division Bench in
Ram Murat's case 2006 (5) ADJ 396,
defining the word "family" as given in
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990,
Paragraph 4.7 lays down the correct law,
even after enforcement of Control Order
2004, except to the extent of introducing
concept of joint residence and joint
kitchen in reference of Brother, whereas
the definition of family is clearly inclusive
of brother also and the definition of family
as given in Clause 2 (o) of U.P. Scheduled
Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 in
no way would override the definition of
family given in Paragraph 4.7 of the
Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990
and the said definition has to be read in
the context of issuance of ration cards and
nothing beyond the same.

Case Law discussed:
(2006) (5) ADJ 396; [(1987) 1 SCC 424;
2006(3) SCC 434; AIR 2007 SC 2458; 2013(1)
scale 7; 2002(3) SCC 481; AIR 1962 All 240.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.)

1. For getting an authoritative
pronouncement,
as
to
whether
the
definition of family as interpreted in the
case of Ram Murat and others Vs.
Commissioner,
Azamgarh
Division,
Azamgarh and others reported in (2006)
(5) ADJ 396 is correct or not, the matter
has been referred to this Full Bench for
answering the following two questions'

(i) Whether the judgment of the
Division Bench in the case of Ram Murat
(supra), defining the word 'Family' as
given
in
Government
Order
dated