# Committee of Management v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 449
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-06
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 214 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J.Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-47893
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri A.K.Ray Addl. Chief Standing Counsel,
Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate), Sri Sankalp
Narain, Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi

A.
Education
Law
-
Election
of
Committee of Management - Uttar
Pradesh Intermediate Education Act,
1921
-
Section
16-A(7)
-
The
jurisdiction of the Joint Director of
Education, or for that matter, the
Regional Level Committee u/s 16-A(7)
r/w the GO dated 20.10.2008 is not
dependent upon a reference made by
the DIOS alone. It all depends at what
stage a dispute with respect to the
management of the institution arises.
(Para 14)

The Committee of Management, whose
elections were first permitted and then
recognized by the DIOS vide orders dated
14.08.2020 and 01.10.2020, respectively, is
represented by its Manager, Afaq Ahmad.
The rival Committee of Management, who
claims to have held elections on 08.10.2020,
is represented by Firoz Khan, the Manager
shown to be elected in elections. The faction
of the management led by Afaq Ahmad are
the appellant to this appeal, whereas the
faction represented and led by Firoz Khan
are the writ petitioner-respondents, who are
65 in number, excluding the jural presence
of
the
Committee
of
Management
represented by Firoz Khan. (Para 4)

In the present case, the dispute arose after
the appellant had secured recognition for the
elections that they claim to have held on
31.08.2020 and recognized on 01.10.2020.
The permission for the elections that was
granted
on
14.08.2020
and
its
later
recognition on 01.10.2020 in the absence of
the
petitioner-respondents
and
without
notice to them would not imbue those
elections with the imprimatur of validity,
merely because the appellant has stealthily
approached the DIOS and sought permission
to hold elections. The elections held by
them, for that reason alone, would not
become infallible. This is not to say that the
elections held by the appellant are unlawful
in any manner. This is a question which the
Joint Director of Education has to go into,
sitting in the Regional Level Committee,
exercising power u/s 16-A(7) of the Act read
with the GO dated 20.10.2008. He would be
required to decide the issue on the basis of
evidence placed before him by parties
regarding the validity of their respective
elections claimed. In any eventuality, the
Joint Director of Education, or for that
matter, the Regional Level Committee
cannot abdicate their obligations under
the Statute to summarily determine the
dispute with regard to the management
of an institution governed by the Act.
They are required to decide, albeit
summarily, the validity of the elections
rivalry claimed by the appellant and the
petitioner-respondents, on the basis of
which,
recognition
would
follow,
subject, of course, to the determination
of a Court of competent jurisdiction.
(Para 15)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

12 All. Committee of Management Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
449
State Government does not alter the legal
position in any manner inasmuch as, the
applicability of Rules 1964 is not depended
upon any declaration being made by the
Governor or by the State Government. If a
teacher was working in an aided institution
prior to the date of his retirement
provisions of rules 1964 become applicable
by operation of law. The manner of
counting the qualifying service stands
explained under the Government Order
dated 26.7.2001.

We may also clarify that the
teachers and employees of institutions which
are brought on the grant-in-aid for the first
time on or subsequent to 1.4.2005 would be
covered by the new scheme enforced on
1.4.2005 and this judgment will have no
application in their case.

We may notice that similar view has
taken by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of State of U.P. And 6 Ors Vs. Shir
Krishna Prasad Yadav and 13 Ors being
Special No.228 of 2016 decided on 24.5.2017.

In view of the aforesaid, we find no
illegality in the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge, it is accordingly,
affirmed. The Appeal is Dismissed."

In view of the discussions aforesaid,
it is clear that petitioner is entitled to
pensionary benefits under the Rules of 1964
and for such purposes the adhoc continuance
from 1996-2016 followed with regularization
would have to be counted towards qualifying
service for sanction and fixation of pension. A
mandamus is issued accordingly to the
respondents for grant of pensionary benefits to
the petitioner. Necessary order in that regard
could be passed by the competent authority
within a period of three months. All
consequential benefits would also be extended
to the petitioner within a further period of two
months thereafter. "

After hearing counsel for the the
parties and perusing the record, in the opinion
of this Court, the present dispute is squarely
covered by the principle of law laid down in
Sunita Sharma's case (supra) as well as latest
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel,
decided on 18.2.2022.

Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 23.01.2014 passed by the respondent
no.3, District Inspector of Schools, District-
Firozabad is hereby quashed. The writ petition
stands allowed.

In view of the discussions aforesaid,
it is clear that petitioner is entitled to
pensionary benefits under the Uttar Pradesh
State Aided Educational Institution Employees
Contributory
Provident
Fund
Insurance
Pension Rules, 1964 and for such purposes the
ad hoc continuance from 1995-2013 followed
with regularization would have to be counted
towards qualifying service for sanction and
fixation of pension. Accordingly, a mandamus
is issued to the respondents for grant of
pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

Necessary order in that regard could
be passed by the competent authority within a
period of three months. All consequential
benefits would also be extended to the
petitioner within a further period of two
months thereafter.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 449
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 214 of 2022

Committee of Management ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad (Sr. Advocate), Sri
Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Sri Rahul Sri vastava,
Sri Sikandar Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K.Ray Addl. Chief Standing Counsel,
Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate), Sri Sankalp
Narain, Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi

A.
Education
Law
-
Election
of
Committee of Management - Uttar
Pradesh Intermediate Education Act,
1921
-
Section
16-A(7)
-
The
jurisdiction of the Joint Director of
Education, or for that matter, the
Regional Level Committee u/s 16-A(7)
r/w the GO dated 20.10.2008 is not
dependent upon a reference made by
the DIOS alone. It all depends at what
stage a dispute with respect to the
management of the institution arises.
(Para 14)

The Committee of Management, whose
elections were first permitted and then
recognized by the DIOS vide orders dated
14.08.2020 and 01.10.2020, respectively, is
represented by its Manager, Afaq Ahmad.
The rival Committee of Management, who
claims to have held elections on 08.10.2020,
is represented by Firoz Khan, the Manager
shown to be elected in elections. The faction
of the management led by Afaq Ahmad are
the appellant to this appeal, whereas the
faction represented and led by Firoz Khan
are the writ petitioner-respondents, who are
65 in number, excluding the jural presence
of
the
Committee
of
Management
represented by Firoz Khan. (Para 4)

In the present case, the dispute arose after
the appellant had secured recognition for the
elections that they claim to have held on
31.08.2020 and recognized on 01.10.2020.
The permission for the elections that was
granted
on
14.08.2020
and
its
later
recognition on 01.10.2020 in the absence of
the
petitioner-respondents
and
without
notice to them would not imbue those
elections with the imprimatur of validity,
merely because the appellant has stealthily
approached the DIOS and sought permission
to hold elections. The elections held by
them, for that reason alone, would not
become infallible. This is not to say that the
elections held by the appellant are unlawful
in any manner. This is a question which the
Joint Director of Education has to go into,
sitting in the Regional Level Committee,
exercising power u/s 16-A(7) of the Act read
with the GO dated 20.10.2008. He would be
required to decide the issue on the basis of
evidence placed before him by parties
regarding the validity of their respective
elections claimed. In any eventuality, the
Joint Director of Education, or for that
matter, the Regional Level Committee
cannot abdicate their obligations under
the Statute to summarily determine the
dispute with regard to the management
of an institution governed by the Act.
They are required to decide, albeit
summarily, the validity of the elections
rivalry claimed by the appellant and the
petitioner-respondents, on the basis of
which,
recognition
would
follow,
subject, of course, to the determination
of a Court of competent jurisdiction.
(Para 15)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter
College & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2011 (8) ADJ
493 (Para 14)

Present special appeal assails judgment
and order dated 21.01.2022, passed by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh
in Writ-C No. 6906 of 2021.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The Joint Director of Education,
First Region, Meerut thought that when
there are two or more rival Committees of
Management, who claim to be validly
elected to office, he could exercise his
powers under Section 16-A(7) of the Uttar
12 All. Committee of Management Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
451
Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921;
not otherwise. He also seems to have
thought that if there is a complainant
assailing
the
validity of
an
elected
management, he could go into its validity if
there was a direction to that effect made by
this Court. About the first part of the Joint
Director's opinion, we find that he was
wrong on facts and about the second part,
he was in error about the law.

2. The facts in this case show that the
last undisputed elections to the Committee
of Management of National Inter College,
Shikarpur,
District
Bulandshahr,
the
institution being governed by the Uttar
Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
(for short, ''the Act'), were held on
29.10.2017. The Committee had a term of
three years and one month. This term ended
on 28.11.2020. The outgoing Committee of
Management say that they called a meeting
of the General Body to hold the next
elections, scheduled for 14.07.2020 through
a notice dated 04.07.2020. The said
meeting and the contemplated elections
could not be held on the said date due to
lack
of
quorum.
The
meeting
was
adjourned. This event appears to have
prompted 19 Members of the General Body
of the Society to seek permission of the
District Inspector of Schools to hold a
meeting of the General Body to conduct the
next elections. This permission was sought
by 19 Members of the General Body and
they stated that they were more than 1/10th
of the General Body Membership. The
District Inspector of Schools put the 19
applicants to notice alone and passed an
order dated 14.08.2020, scheduling an
election meeting for 31.08.2020. The
election
meeting
was
convened
on
16.10.2020, wherein, 39 out of 110
Members of the General Body (of the
Society) participated. The result of these
elections was approved and recognized by
the District Inspector of Schools vide order
dated 01.10.2020.

3. There was a parallel election
convened by Members of the General
Body, where the election programme was
circulated on 25.08.2020 and the elections
were
held
on
08.10.2020.
These
proceedings were submitted for approval
and recognition to the District Inspector of
Schools as well.

4. The Committee of Management,
whose elections were first permitted and
then recognized by the District Inspector of
Schools vide orders dated 14.08.2020 and
01.10.2020, respectively, is represented by
its Manager, Afaq Ahmad. The rival
Committee of Management, who claims to
have held elections on 08.10.2020, is
represented by Firoz Khan, the Manager
shown to be elected in elections. The
faction of the management led by Afaq
Ahmad are the appellant to this appeal,
whereas the faction represented and led by
Firoz Khan are the writ petitionerrespondents, who are 65 in number,
excluding the jural presence of the
Committee of Management represented by
Firoz Khan.

5. The District Inspector of Schools
did not pass any order regarding the
elections claimed by the Committee of
Management led by Firoz Khan, apparently
so, as he had already passed an order on
October
1,
2020,
recognizing
the
management led by Afaq Ahmad. The
petitioner-respondents
to
this
appeal
approached the Joint Director of Education,
invoking his powers under Section 16-A(7)
of the Act. They apparently asserted that it
was a case where there was a dispute with
respect to the management of the institution
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and it was he who had to decide that
dispute; else it was the Regional Level
Committee, which would exercise the
powers of the Joint Director of Education
under the Statute, with the Joint Director of
Education as its head, in terms of the
Government Order dated 20.10.2008, that
could
decide
a
dispute
about
the
management.

6. The Joint Director of Education by
his order dated 31.12.2020 neither decided
the dispute himself nor placed it before the
Regional Level Committee constituted
under
the
Government
Order
dated
September 2, 2008. He held that the power
under Section 16-A(7) of the Act can be
exercised by the Regional Level Committee
with the aid of the Government Order if
there were two parallel Committees of
Management constituted; else it could be
exercised if the High Court, by a direction
issued in a writ petition, ordered the
competent
Authority
to
decide.
The
competent Authority mentioned in the order
dated 31.12.2020 appears to be a reference
to the Regional Level Committee or the
Joint Director, in either case exercising
jurisdiction under Section 16-A(7) of the
Act.

7. The two orders dated 14.08.2020
and 01.10.2020 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools and the order dated
31.12.2020 passed by the Joint Director of
Education were impugned by the writ
petitioner-respondents in Writ - C No. 6906
of 2021. The learned Single Judge, before
whom the writ petition aforesaid came up,
declined to interfere with the orders dated
14.08.2020 and 01.10.2020 on ground that
these had recognized elections held by the
appellant, the process whereof had been
completed. Apparently, the learned Single
Judge did not disturb the orders passed in
favour
of
the
appellant's
elections,
inasmuch as the District Inspector of
Schools had recognized one set of elections
before the rival claim was laid before him.
And, after the rival claim was laid, the
District Inspector of Schools would have
no jurisdiction. It would lie under the
Statute,
with
the
Joint
Director
of
Education or with the Regional Level
Committee
exercising
those
statutory
powers in terms of the Government Order
dated 20.10.2008. The learned Single
Judge, therefore, scrutinized the order dated
31.12.2020 passed by the Joint Director of
Education,
declining
to
exercise
his
jurisdiction under Section 16-A(7) of the
Act and refusing to place the matter before
the Regional Level Committee. The learned
Judge has quashed the last mentioned order
by the judgment and order impugned and
directed the Regional Level Committee to
issue notice to all affected parties, hear
them and pass orders, preferably within a
period of three months the date the claim
was instituted before the Joint Director of
Education, First Region, Meerut.

8. Aggrieved, this appeal has been
preferred.

9. Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Mithilesh Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for
the appellant, Mr. G.K. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sankalp
Narain, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner-respondents nos. 5 to
70 and Mr. A.K. Ray, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for respondent
nos.1 to 4.

10. It is submitted by the learned
Counsel for the appellant that the learned
Single Judge has erred in quashing the
order passed by the Joint Director of
12 All. Committee of Management Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
453
Education, inasmuch as the learned Judge
has failed to appreciate that it was the
appellant alone who was competent to hold
elections, once permitted by the District
Inspector of Schools vide order dated
14.08.2020. No one else could hold a
parallel election, valid enough to bring into
existence a dispute about rival committees
meriting a reference to the Joint Director of
Education or to the Regional Level
Committee under Section 16-A(7) of the
Act read with the Government Order dated
20.10.2008. Learned Counsel for the
appellant emphasizes that there was only
one election in existence on or after
01.10.2020 and the subsequent elections
held by the writ petitioner-respondents on
08.10.2020 had no semblance of legitimacy
worth consideration as a rival claim.

11. Mr. G.K. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the writ petitionerrespondents, on the other hand, submits that
there was a substantial issue about the
validity of the elections held by a small group
of Members of the General Body, who had
virtually tricked the District Inspector of
Schools into granting an ex parte permission
and then an ex parte recognition. The
petitioner-respondents had no opportunity or
notice to contest the appellant's claimed
elections when the permission was granted by
the District Inspector of Schools or when the
elections held were recognized. In his
submission, there is a substantial and bona
fide dispute that requires to be summarily
determined by the Joint Director of Education
or the Regional Level Committee in the
exercise of their powers under Section 16A(7) of the Act read with the Government
Order under reference.

12. We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced on behalf of both
parties and perused the record.

13. It appears to us that before the
learned Single Judge it was contended that
a reference under Section 16-A(7) of the
Act read with the Government Order dated
20.10.2008 could be made before the
District Inspector of Schools decided upon
the validity of elections and recognized it,
and not thereafter. It was also contended
that the Regional Level Committee could
decide on the basis of a reference made by
the District Inspector of Schools alone, in
case the District Inspector of Schools felt
that there was a legal impediment in
attesting the signatures of the Manager
claimed on the basis of an election held. It
was urged that no private reference of the
dispute to the Joint Director of Education
and a fortiori to the Regional Level
Committee could be made.

14. This part of the submission was
negatived by the learned Single Judge
based on the decision of a Division Bench
of
this
Court
in
Committee
of
Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter College
and another vs. State of U.P. and others,
2011 (8) ADJ 493. There is absolutely no
doubt in our mind that the principle laid
down in Committee of Management, Sri
Yadvesh Inter College (supra) and the
exposition of the legal position by the
learned Single Judge on its basis is without
the slightest flaw. The jurisdiction of the
Joint Director of Education, or for that
matter, the Regional Level Committee
under Section 16-A(7) read with the
Government Order dated 20.10.2008 is not
dependent upon a reference made by the
District Inspector of Schools alone. It all
depends at what stage a dispute with
respect to the management of the institution
arises.

15. In the present case, the dispute
arose after the appellant had secured
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recognition for the elections that they claim
to have held on 31.08.2020 and recognized
on 01.10.2020. The permission for the
elections that was granted on 14.08.2020
and its later recognition on 01.10.2020 in
the absence of the petitioner-respondents
and without notice to them would not
imbue those elections with the imprimatur
of validity, merely because the appellant
has stealthily approached the District
Inspector of Schools and sought permission
to hold elections. The elections held by
them, for that reason alone, would not
become infallible. This is not to say that
the elections held by the appellant are
unlawful in any manner. This is a question
which the Joint Director of Education has
to go into, sitting in the Regional Level
Committee,
exercising
power
under
Section 16-A(7) of the Act read with the
Government Order dated 20.10.2008. He
would be required to decide the issue on
the basis of evidence placed before him by
parties regarding the validity of their
respective elections claimed. In any
eventuality,
the
Joint
Director
of
Education, or for that matter, the Regional
Level Committee cannot abdicate their
obligations under the Statute to summarily
determine the dispute with regard to the
management of an institution governed by
the Act. They are required to decide, albeit
summarily, the validity of the elections
rivally claimed by the appellant and the
petitioner-respondents, on the basis of
which, recognition would follow, subject,
of course, to the determination of a Court
of competent jurisdiction.

16. In the opinion of this Court, there
is no error in the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge. This appeal fails and
is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 454
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 558 of 2022

Nabeel Husain ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shiv Bhushan Singh, Sri Mahendra
Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment
of Dependents of Government Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5(1) -
U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 - Sections 3
& 13 - Rule 5(1) of 1974 Rules indicates
that
the
claim
for
compassionate
appointment is not maintainable where
the spouse of the deceased government
servant is already employed under the
Central Government or a St. Government
or a Corporation owned or controlled by
the
Central
Government
or
a
St.
Government. (Para 11)

In the instant case, there is no dispute that the
spouse of the deceased employee, namely
Tabassum Khan, is employed as Head-Mistress
of a primary institution under the Board of Basic
Education which is established by the St.
Government u/s 3 of the U.P. Basic Education
Act, 1972 and is under the control of the St.
Government as per section 13 of the 1972 Act.
(Para 12)

The
submission
that
Tabassum
Khan
is
appellant's step mother and he would get no
benefit of his step mother's employment is not