# Hari Narayan Singh & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1193
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-05
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-narayan-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44159
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

C.S.C., Shri Manish Goel, Shri Piyush Kishore Srivastava, P K Upadhyay

Held -

Core Legal Issue: The principal issue for consideration in this writ petition is whether the ex-officio members
(the Principal and two teachers) of an educational institution's committee of management, as envisioned by
Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, are legally entitled to vote in an election to fill a
casual vacancy for the post of Manager.

Background and Original Election: The Rastriya Intermediate College, Sirsi, Jaunpur, is run by a
registered society under a scheme of administration providing a 5-year term for its Committee of
Management. In the last regular elections held on September 10, 2013, Babban Singh was elected President
and Ram Murti Singh was elected Manager.

Triggering Casual Vacancies: On March 23, 2014, President Babban Singh died, creating the first casual
vacancy. The first petitioner claimed he was elected as the new President on June 8, 2014. Subsequently, on
July 23, 2015, Manager Ram Murti Singh resigned, creating a second casual vacancy for the Manager's post,
which became the core bone of contention.

The Fourth Respondent's Claim: The fourth respondent (the Deputy Manager) claimed that Ram Murti
Singh's resignation was accepted on July 26, 2015, in meetings of both the general body and the Committee
of Management, wherein he was authorized to officiate as Manager. On November 6, 2015, the District
Inspector of Schools (DIOS) recognized him and attested his signature.

The Petitioners' Rival Claim and Consent Order: The petitioners set up a rival claim, stating a meeting
on October 4, 2015, had co-opted Mahavir Singh as Manager. This led to a previous writ petition which was
disposed of by consensus on December 11, 2015, directing the DIOS to hold a fresh election for the post of
Manager via secret ballot.

Objections Over the Electoral College: In preparation for the new election, the fourth respondent
supplied an outdated list of 15 members containing deceased individuals (including the original President
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Babban Singh) and the resigned Manager, while excluding the first petitioner. The petitioners filed an affidavit
objecting to this list and specifically argued that the three ex-officio members had no right to vote.

The Disputed Election and DIOS Order: The Election Officer ignored the petitioners' objections and
conducted the election on February 16, 2016, using the fourth respondent's list. The fourth respondent was
declared the winner with 9 votes against the fourth petitioner's 3 votes. On February 27, 2016, the DIOS
formally recognized this election, which the petitioners challenged via the current writ petition.

Petitioners' Contentions: Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that: (a) the scheme of administration
explicitly prohibits ex-officio members from voting for office bearers; (b) the deceased President was wro

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 57,890. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

8 All. Hari Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1193
(2016) 8 ILRA 1193
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No.- 20797 Of 2016

Hari Narayan Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Shri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shri Manish Goel, Shri Piyush Kishore Srivastava, P K Upadhyay

Held -

Core Legal Issue: The principal issue for consideration in this writ petition is whether the ex-officio members
(the Principal and two teachers) of an educational institution's committee of management, as envisioned by
Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, are legally entitled to vote in an election to fill a
casual vacancy for the post of Manager.

Background and Original Election: The Rastriya Intermediate College, Sirsi, Jaunpur, is run by a
registered society under a scheme of administration providing a 5-year term for its Committee of
Management. In the last regular elections held on September 10, 2013, Babban Singh was elected President
and Ram Murti Singh was elected Manager.

Triggering Casual Vacancies: On March 23, 2014, President Babban Singh died, creating the first casual
vacancy. The first petitioner claimed he was elected as the new President on June 8, 2014. Subsequently, on
July 23, 2015, Manager Ram Murti Singh resigned, creating a second casual vacancy for the Manager's post,
which became the core bone of contention.

The Fourth Respondent's Claim: The fourth respondent (the Deputy Manager) claimed that Ram Murti
Singh's resignation was accepted on July 26, 2015, in meetings of both the general body and the Committee
of Management, wherein he was authorized to officiate as Manager. On November 6, 2015, the District
Inspector of Schools (DIOS) recognized him and attested his signature.

The Petitioners' Rival Claim and Consent Order: The petitioners set up a rival claim, stating a meeting
on October 4, 2015, had co-opted Mahavir Singh as Manager. This led to a previous writ petition which was
disposed of by consensus on December 11, 2015, directing the DIOS to hold a fresh election for the post of
Manager via secret ballot.

Objections Over the Electoral College: In preparation for the new election, the fourth respondent
supplied an outdated list of 15 members containing deceased individuals (including the original President
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Babban Singh) and the resigned Manager, while excluding the first petitioner. The petitioners filed an affidavit
objecting to this list and specifically argued that the three ex-officio members had no right to vote.

The Disputed Election and DIOS Order: The Election Officer ignored the petitioners' objections and
conducted the election on February 16, 2016, using the fourth respondent's list. The fourth respondent was
declared the winner with 9 votes against the fourth petitioner's 3 votes. On February 27, 2016, the DIOS
formally recognized this election, which the petitioners challenged via the current writ petition.

Petitioners' Contentions: Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that: (a) the scheme of administration
explicitly prohibits ex-officio members from voting for office bearers; (b) the deceased President was wrongly
included while the first petitioner was excluded; and (c) the resigned Manager was illegally allowed to vote.

Fourth Respondent's Counter-Arguments: Counsel for the fourth respondent countered that: (a) Section
16-A of the Act grants ex-officio members an absolute right to vote; (b) any conflicting provision in the
scheme of administration is void; and (c) the first petitioner was never properly approved or elected as
President.

Statutory Framework of Section 16-A: The Court examined Section 16-A of the Act, noting that it
explicitly states the Head of the institution and two teachers shall be ex-officio members of the Committee of
Management "with a right to vote." It restricts voting only when a member's personal conduct is under
discussion.
Strict Rules of Statutory Interpretation: Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court noted that when the
language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts must adhere to its grammatical and ordinary sense.
Words cannot be added, substituted, or interpreted away based on perceived inconvenience or a desire to
import external rationality.

Conflict Between Statute and Management Scheme: The Court held that Section 16-A confers an
unequivocal, absolute right to vote. If an institution's approved Scheme of Administration contains clauses
restricting this statutory voting right, such provisions are inconsistent with the Act, cannot be infused with life,
and must give way to the statute.

Overruling of Division Bench Precedent as Per Incuriam: The Court addressed a past Division Bench
judgment (Ajab Singh) which had barred ex-officio members from voting to keep them out of college politics.
The Court agreed with a later Single Judge ruling that Ajab Singh was rendered per incuriam (in ignorance of
the law) because Section 16-A(1) was never brought to that bench's attention.

Distinguishing Harjinder Nagar Case: The Court noted that another case relied upon by the petitioners
(Harjinder Nagar) also failed to consider Section 16-A(1). Furthermore, the Division Bench in that case's
appeal did not actually endorse the restriction on ex-officio voting, but rather upheld the ultimate decision on
different mathematical grounds.

The Practical Utility of Ex-Officio Voting: The Court explained that once a 15-member management
committee is formed, decisions are made by majority will. If ex-officio members are excluded from filling
casual vacancies, an office bearer might be elected who lacks the confidence of the full composite committee,
effectively paralyzing the institution's management. Thus, the legislature deliberately did not curtail their right.

Disqualification of the Resigned Manager: Turning to the next issue, the Court ruled that when Ram
Murti Singh resigned from the post of Manager, he ceased to be part of the Committee of Management.
Because the electoral college must consist of members currently holding office on the election date, allowing
him to vote was illegal.
8 All. Hari Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1195
Estoppel Against Disputing the President's Status: On the issue of the first petitioner's exclusion, the
Court found that the fourth respondent had previously sent notices addressing the first petitioner as President
and had recorded his absence due to illness in prior minutes. The fourth respondent was therefore legally
stopped from claiming the first petitioner was never elected.

Administrative Approval for Casual Vacancies: The Court clarified that while a full election of a
Committee of Management requires recognition from educational authorities, no separate, explicit statutory
approval is required when filling an internal casual vacancy for a non-managerial post like President. Simple
communication of the proceedings to the authorities is sufficient.

Invalid Electoral College Vitiates the Election: The Court concluded that even though the ex-officio
members were properly allowed to vote, the illegal inclusion of the resigned Manager and the illegal exclusion
of the actual President were fatal errors. An election conducted with an fundamentally flawed and unfinalized
electoral college cannot stand.

Final Order and Directions: The High Court quashed the DIOS order dated February 27, 2016, and
declared the election of February 16, 2016, void. The DIOS was directed to convene a fresh election meeting
where the first petitioner must be included, the resigned manager must be excluded, and the ex-officio
members shall retain their right to vote.

Case Laws Cited:-

1. Stock vs. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd., [1978] 1 All ER 948 (referenced via Supreme Court
reliance)
2. Grey vs. Pearson, (1857) 6 H.L. Cas. 61
3. Abley vs. Dale, (1851) 11 C.B. 378
4. Sangeeta Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 7 SCC 484
5. Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 533
6. Ajab Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools, Meerut and others, 1971 A.L.J. 165
7. Committee of Management DAV Inter College, Tateir Baghpat and another vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2010 (3) ADJ 35
8. State of U.P. vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., 1991 (4) SCC 139
9. Harjinder Nagar Inter College and Another vs. State of U.P., 2012 (9) ADJ 1
10. Lalappa Lingappa & Ors vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 85211. Robert
Wigram Crawford vs. Richard Spooner, (1846) 4 M.I.A. 179

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. One of the issues which arise for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the
ex-officio members of the committee of management envisaged by Section 16-A of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 19211 are entitled to vote at an election for filling up the casual
vacancy of manager.

2. The background facts in which the controversy arose are that Rastriya Shiksha Samiti,
Sirsi, Jaunpur, later came to be known as Vishwanath Singh Shiksha Samiti, Sirsi, Jaunpur is a
registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It runs an
Intermediate College in the name of Rastriya Intermediate College, Sirsi, Jaunpur. It is a recognised
institution under the provisions of the Act. The institution receives grant-in-aid from the State
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Government and consequently the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are also applicable. The
institution is being run in accordance with a duly approved scheme of administration whereunder
the term of the Committee of Management of the institution is five years. The last election of the
Committee of Management was held on 10.9.2013 in which one Babban Singh was elected as
President and Ram Murti Singh as Manager. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 were elected as members of the
Committee. Babban Singh, the President died on 23.3.2014. The first petitioner claimed that he,
who was President of the parent society, was also elected as President of the College by the
Committee of Management on 8.6.2014 against the casual vacancy that occurred on account of
death of Babban Singh. On 23.7.2015, Ram Murti Singh, the Manager resigned. This again gave
rise to a casual vacancy on the post of Manager. The filling up the said vacancy is the bone of
contention between the petitioners and the fourth respondent, the Deputy Manager. According to
the fourth respondent, the resignation submitted by Ram Murti Singh was accepted in a meeting of
the general body of the parent society held on 26.7.2015 at 11:00 a.m. and in his place, he was
authorised to work as Manager until the post is filled up by regular arrangement. It was followed by
a meeting of the Committee of Management of the institution held at 4:00 p.m. on the same day in
which a similar decision was taken. The fourth respondent on the basis of the decision taken in the
meeting held on 26.7.2015 submitted a request to the second respondent, the District Inspector of
Schools for attestation of his signature as Manager for the purpose of operating the accounts of the
institution.

3. The petitioners setup a rival claim contending that no meeting had taken place on
26.7.2015, rather a meeting of the Committee of Management took place on 4.10.2015 in which the
resignation of Ram Murti Singh was accepted and in his place one Mahavir Singh, a member of the
Committee was co-opted as Manager.

4. The aforesaid rival claim set up by the parties was subject matter of consideration by the
District Inspector of Schools by order dated 6.11.2015. The District Inspector of Schools, taking
into consideration the affidavit filed by Ram Murti Singh in support of the alleged proceedings
dated 26.7.2015, in which the fourth respondent was authorised to discharge the duties as Manager
until regular arrangement is made, recognised him as Manager for the remainder of the term and
also attested his signatures.

5. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6.11.2015 was subjected to challenge
by the petitioners by means of a writ petition2. In the said writ petition, the main contention of the
petitioners was that the fourth respondent had been recognised as Manager without considering the
case set up by them disputing the genuineness and validity of the proceedings dated 26.7.2015.
During the course of hearing of the writ petition, it was admitted that Mahabir Singh, whom the
petitioner alleged to have been elected as Manager, had died on 4.10.2015. Thus, the claim set up
by him for attestation of his signature was rendered infructuous. In view of it, counsel for the
parties, in order to put quietus to the controversy agreed to the disposal of the writ petition on basis
of consensus. Accordingly, by judgment dated 11.12.2015, the writ petition was disposed of in
following terms :-
8 All. Hari Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1197
a) The second respondent is directed to convene a meeting of the committee of
management of the institution within three weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order. The date
of the meeting shall be duly intimated to the office bearers and members of the committee of the
institution by registered post as well as by publishing a notice in a local Hindi Newspaper. The
expenses in this regard shall be borne by the third respondent.

b) The meeting shall be presided over by the second respondent himself or by his
nominee, who could be the Accounts Officer in his office or Principal of some Government College.

c) In the aforesaid meeting, the only agenda would be regarding filling up of the
vacancy on the post of the Manager of the committee of management of the institution. The motion
shall be put to vote by secret ballot and thereafter, appropriate decision shall be taken in regard to
the filling up of the post of Manager, as per the result of the election.

d) Until the new Manager is elected, the Deputy Manager i.e. the third respondent
shall be entitled to function as Manager in officiating capacity.

e) However, soon after the elections are held, the newly elected Manager shall be
entitled to take over the duties attached to the post of the Manager of the institution and the second
respondent shall act accordingly in attesting the signatures of the newly elected Manager. The
impugned order will thus abide by the outcome of the elections, which would be held in pursuance
of the directions aforesaid.

6. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools by order
dated 1.1.2016 nominated the third respondent (Finance & Accounts Officer, Secondary Education,
Jaunpur) as Election Officer for conducting the election on the post of Manager. The third
respondent on 27.1.2016 issued an order convening meeting of the Committee of Management on
16.2.2016 for filling the casual vacancy of Manager. It was further notified that in case any one has
any objection in relation to the election process, the same could be filed in his office by 8.2.2016.
The fourth respondent submitted a list of 15 persons supposedly containing the names of the
members and office bearers of the Committee of Management before the Election Officer on
28.1.2016. It comprises of the name of those who were elected in the last election held in the year
2013-14. Thus, it mentioned name of Babban Singh as President who had infact died on 23.3.2014,
Ram Murti Singh as Manager, who had resigned on 23.7.2015 and names of Kripa Shankar Lal and
Mahavir Singh as Treasurer and member respectively, though they had also died since after the
election held in the year 2013. On the other hand, the list did not contain the name of the first
petitioner though he claimed to be elected as President after the death of Babban Singh. This
prompted the petitioners to file their objection by way of affidavit before the third respondent
pointing out the aforesaid discrepancies. They further raised a plea that the ex-officio members
namely, the Principal and two teachers of the institution whose name find place in the list supplied
by the fourth respondent, do not have right to vote in election of the office bearers of a committee
of management. They also supplied a list of the office bearers and members, which according to
them reflected the position of the Committee as was in existence at the relevant time.
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The third respondent did not pay heed to the objection filed by the petitioners. He
proceeded to hold the election on the assigned date and time i.e., on 16.2.2016 from the list
supplied by the fourth respondent. In the election held on that date, the fourth petitioner and the
fourth respondent were the only two contestants for the post of Manager. The fourth respondent
was declared elected having got 9 votes whereas the fourth petitioner got only 3 votes. The
petitioners made a representation on the same date before the District Inspector of Schools pointing
out various irregularities allegedly committed by the third respondent in conducting the election
and requested for fresh election being held from the list of office bearers and members supplied by
the petitioners. However, the District Inspector of Schools by impugned order dated 27.2.2016 has
recognised the election of the fourth respondent on the post of Manager. Aggrieved thereby, the
instant writ petition has been filed.

8. The fourth respondent entered appearance by means of a caveat and filed a short counter
affidavit. The petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit. Counsel for the parties made a statement
before the Court that they do not intend to file any further affidavits and requested for the matter
being heard finally.

9. Sri G. K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the
election proceedings dated 16.2.2016 as well as the order passed by the District Inspector of
Schools dated 27.2.2016 recognising the said election on the following grounds :-

(a) The three ex-officio members of the Committee of Management, namely, the
Principal and two teachers were not entitled to vote in the election. It is urged that clause 5 (ga) of
the Scheme of Administration as originally framed (Annexure 3) specifically prohibits participation
of the ex-officio members in the election of the office bearers or members of the Committee of
Management or any proceedings relating to the passing of no confidence motion or determination
of disability of any member/ office bearer. Consequently, the participation of three ex-officio
members, all of whom had voted in favour of the fourth respondent, had rendered the election
proceedings illegal and void.

(b) Babban Singh, erstwhile President being dead was wrongly shown as President
of the Committee of Management on the basis of which election had been conducted by the third
respondent, whereas the first petitioner who was elected as President in his place was wrongly
excluded from the election process.

(c) Ram Murti Singh, erstwhile Manager who had admittedly resigned on
23.7.2015 was wrongly permitted to participate in the election process. He had voted in favour of
the fourth respondent, thus adversely affecting the outcome of the election.

(d) Non-inclusion of the name of the first petitioner in the electoral college for
filling up the casual vacancy has rendered the entire election null and void. He has been deprived of
his right to contest the election and/or caste his vote, thus, vitiating the entire election process.
8 All. Hari Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1199
(e) The third respondent though had invited objections against the election process
but he held the elections without considering the objections filed by the petitioners and also without
finalising the electoral college which is sine qua non for holding of a valid election.

10. On the other hand, Sri Manish Goel, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent
submitted that :

(a). the ex-officio member viz, the Principal and two teachers were rightly
permitted to vote in view of such right conferred in their favour by Section 16-A of the Act.

(b). The only approved scheme of administration in existence is the one approved
by the Dy. Director of Education on 25.1.1985 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). Therein, there is
no prohibition for the ex-officio members participating in the election of the office bearers and
particularly for filling up the casual vacancy on the post of Manager.

(c). Arguendo that the scheme brought on record as Annexure 3 was in existence,
the same stood superseded by the new scheme approved on 25.1.1985 and thus the petitioners
cannot be permitted to place reliance on the old scheme. Further any provision in the scheme of
administration which restricted the right of the ex-officio members to vote, is contrary to the
provision of Section 16-A of the Act, consequently, such provision is unenforceable and void.

(d). The first petitioner was not permitted to participate in the election as the
election was to be held from the Committee as originally elected on 10.9.2013, in which
concededly the first petitioner was not elected as President. It is further sought to be suggested that
infact, the first petitioner was never elected as President after death of Babban Singh and thus even
otherwise, he had no right to contest the election or to vote therein.

11. Countering the submissions made by Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the scheme approved by the Deputy Director of Education on 25.1.1985
is only an amendment to the earlier scheme of administration and it does not supersede the same.
To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on various provisions of earlier scheme of
administration and the amended scheme of administration and tried to bring home the fact that in
the scheme subsequently approved, various provisions as contained in the original scheme do not
find place and thus the same does not stand superseded altogether as sought to be urged on behalf
of the contesting respondent. He further submitted that the election of the first petitioner on the post
of President had never been a matter of dispute. He submitted that even when previous writ petition
was filed by the first petitioner showing himself as President, assailing the order dated 6.11.2015,
the claim of the first petitioner was not disputed. It is further submitted that the fourth respondent
himself, in the notice issued on 23.7.2015 for convening the meeting dated 26.7.2015 had shown
the first petitioner as President and again in the proceedings dated 26.7.2015, thus, it does not lie in
the mouth of the fourth respondent to dispute the election of the first petitioner on the post of
President.
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. Section 16-A of the Act envisages a Scheme of Administration for every institution
which amongst other matters provides for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested
with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. It stipulates that the Head of
the institution and two teachers thereof elected by rotation according to seniority, shall be ex-officio
members of the Committee of Management with a right to vote. For convenience of reference,
relevant part of section 16-A is reproduced below :-

16-A. Scheme of Administration --- Notwithstanding anything in any law,
document, or decree, order of a Court or other instrument there shall be a Scheme of Administration
(hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of Administration) for every institution, whether recognised
before or after the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958. The
Scheme of Administration shall amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee
of Management (hereinafter called the Committee of Management) vested with authority to manage
and conduct the affairs of the institution. The Head of the institution and two teachers thereof, who
shall be elected by rotation according to seniority in the manner to be prescribed by regulations,
shall be ex-officio members of the Committee of Management with a right to vote.

(2) No member of the Committee of Management shall either attend a meeting of
the committee or exercise his right to vote whenever a charge concerning his personal conduct is in
discussion.

(3) The Scheme of Administration shall also describe subject to any regulations,
the respective powers, duties and functions of the Head of the Institution and Committee of
Management in relation to the institution.

13. Section 16-CC of the Act substituted by U.P. Act No.1 of 1981 provides that the
Scheme of Administration of an institution whether recognised before or after commencement of
the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980, shall not be inconsistent with the principles
laid down in the Third Schedule. The Third Schedule postulates that every Scheme of
Administration shall -

(1) provide for proper and effective functioning of the Committee of Management;

(2) provide for procedure for constitution of the Committee of Management by
periodical elections;

(3) provide for the qualifications and disqualifications of the members and officebearers of the Committee of Management and the term of their offices.

Provided that no such Scheme shall contain provisions creating monopoly in favour
or any particular person, caste, creed or family;
8 All. Hari Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1201
(4) provide for the procedure of calling meeting and the conduct of business at such
meetings;

(5) provide that all the decisions shall be taken by the Committee of Management
and powers of delegation, if any shall be limited and clearly defined;

(6) ensure that the powers and duties of the Committee of Management and its
office-bearers are clearly defined;

(7) provide for the maintenance and security of property belonging to the
institution and also for the utilisation of its funds and for the regular checking and auditing of
accounts.

14. The language of Section 16-A is plain and unambiguous and admits of no confusion
regarding right of ex-officio members to vote. The right conferred in their favour is in absolute
terms without any qualification or exception. The provision of sub-section (1) of Section 16-A
when contrasted with sub-section (2) further reinforces an interpretation that where the legislature
intended to limit the right to vote, as in case of a member whose personal conduct is in discussion,
the same has been specifically provided for.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Sangeeta Singh vs. Union of India and others3 has
held that "the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or a stipulated condition which
is plain and unambiguous. ............. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from
the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what
has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or
substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided.
.............. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely
necessary to do so. [See Stock vs Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.4] Rules of interpretation do not permit
the courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning. .............
The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said".

16. In Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of Tamilnadu5, the Supreme Court noticed the
golden rule of construing statutes by quoting the following passages from Grey vs. Pearson6 and
Abley vs. Dale7 :-
"The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that
would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument,
in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid
that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further" (See Grey v. Pearson 6 H.L. Case 61).

The latter part of this "golden rule" must, however, be applied with much caution.
"if," remarked Jervis, C.J.,
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"the precise words used are plain and unambiguous in our judgment, we are bound
to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though it lead, in our view of the case, to an
absurdity or manifest injustice. Words may be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or
obscure. But we assume the functions of legislators when we depart from the ordinary meaning of
the precise words used, merely because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice
from an adherence to their literal meaning" (See Abley v. Dale) (ER p.525).

17. If these principles of construction of statutes are kept in mind it can safely be held that
the statute has conferred an unequivocal right to vote in favour of the ex-officio members. Ordinary
all members of the Committee have a right to vote, as under Clause (5) of the Third Schedule, all
decisions are to be taken by the Committee but in order to obviate any doubt regarding the right of
ex-offio members, it has been specifically provided for by the statute. However counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance on Clauses 5 and 8 of the scheme of administration in contending that
the scheme of administration as duly approved itself prohibits the ex-officio members from voting
in an election of the office-bearers of the Committee of Management. These Clauses of the Scheme
of Administration are to the following effect :-

5- lfefr dk laxBu&lfefr esa fuEufyf[kr iUnzg lnL; gksaxs%&

1⁄4d1⁄2 inkf/kdkjh&

1&v/;{k] 2&mik/;{k] 3&izcU/k] 4&lgk;d izca/kd] rFkk 5& dks"kk/;{kA
mijksDr 5 inkf/kdkjh lkslkbVh }kjk pqus tk;saxsA

1⁄4[k1⁄2 lk/kkj.k lnL; 7 & lkslkbVh vius lnL;ksa esa ls lfefr ds lkr lk/kkj.k lnL;ksa dk pquko
djsaxhA

1⁄4x1⁄2 insu lnL;k 3& iz/kkukpk;Z rFkk nks v/;kid ,sDV ds lsD'ku 16&,1⁄411⁄2 vkSj fofu;e % 1 % ds
vuqlkj insu lnL; gksaxs] tks izcU/k lfefr ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds pquko esa rFkk fdlh lnL; ;k inkf/kdkjh ds fo#)
vfo'okl ds izLrko esa ;k vk;ksX;rkvksa ds fu/kkZj.k esa Hkkx ugha ysxsaA

8- vkdfLed fjfDr & lnL;ksa 1⁄4insu lnL;ksa ls fHkUu1⁄2 ;k lfefr ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds in esa gksus okyh
fdlh vkdfLed fjfDr 1⁄4mijksDr en 7 dh fLFkfr ds vfrfjDr1⁄2 dh iwfrZ lfefr }kjk dk;Zdky dh 'ks"k vof/k ds fy;s dh
tk;sxh vkSj bl izdkj fu;qfDr dksbZ O;fDr ml 'ks"k dky ds fy;s lfefr dk lnL; ;k inkf/kdkjh 1⁄4tSlh Hkh n'kk gks1⁄2 gksxk]
ftlds fy;s og O;fDr] ftlds LFkku dh og iwfrZ djrk gS] lnL; ;k inkf/kdkjh jgrkA

18. As discussed above, Section 16-A specifically confers a right to vote in favour of exofficio members. The right conferred is in absolute terms without any exception. There is no other
provision under the Act which may be taken aid of to restrict such right of vote. If a Scheme of
Administration envisaged by Section 16-A contains a stipulation which is contrary to the specific
provisions of the Act, such a stipulation has to pave way to the provisions of the Act.

19. It is noteworthy that Section 16-A was inserted by U.P. Act no. 35 of 1958. By the
same amending Act, Section 16-B was also inserted which empowers the Director to suggest
8 All. Hari Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1203
alteration or modification in the Scheme of Administration. Subsequently, when Section 16-CC was
inserted by U.P. Act No.1 of 1981 which stipulates that the Scheme of Administration has to be
consistent with the principles laid down in the Third Schedule, the other provision inserted was
Section 16-CCC. It again empowered the Director to compel the alteration or modification in a
Scheme of Administration in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. In case, the
Director has not taken recourse to such power or has approved a Scheme containing a stipulation
which is inconsistent with the provision of the Act, it would not infuse life into it. A scheme of
administration of an institution recognised under the Act is a creature of statute. It cannot contain a
stipulation which whittles down the provisions of the Act.

20. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this
Court in Ajab Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools, Meerut and others8 wherein the Scheme
of Administration contained a provision to the effect that elected member of the Committee alone
would have the right to participate in the election of an office bearer. The Court explained the
rationale behind such a provision by holding as under :-:-

"The Scheme of Administration provided that the twelve elected members of the
Committee of Management alone have a right to participate in the election of the office bearers and
the ex-officio members have no right to participate therein. The intention behind this provision
seems to be clearly that employees of the Institution who became ex-officio members of the
Committee of Management will not participate in the election politics of the college concerned and
that when they have been debarred from participating in the election proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)

21. It is noticeable that while taking the said view, the stipulation in the Scheme of
Administration alone was taken into consideration. The provisions of Section 16-A(1) of the
Intermediate Education Act which specifically confers a right to vote in favour of ex-officio
members, was not brought to the notice of the Court. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge in Committee of
Management DAV Inter College, Tateir Baghpat and another vs. State of U.P. and others 9.
The learned Single Judge after noticing the fact that the Division Bench judgement was rendered in
ignorance of the statutory provision, held that it would have no binding effect. For taking such
view, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of
U.P. vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.10 wherein the law relating to per incurium was laid down.
The relevant portion from the said judgement is as under :-

"10. I have gone through the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. It
is apparently clear that the Division Bench has not noticed the aforesaid provisions of Section
16A(1) of the Intermediate Education Act and therefore, the said judgment in the opinion of the
Court is based on non-consideration of a statutory provision and as such has no binding effect in
the facts of the case.
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The legal position in that regard has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., 1991 (4) SCC 139. In the said
judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"Incuria' literally means 'carelessness. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per
ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The
'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, 'in ignoratium of a statute or other binding
authority'. (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd.). Same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this
Court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a
matter of law. In Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey this Court while pointing out the procedure to be
followed when conflicting decisions are placed before a Bench extracted a passage from Halsbury's Laws
of England incorporating one of the exceptions when the decision of an appellate court is not binding."

This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge in
Committee of Management, DAV Intermediate College, Baghpat (supra).

22. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on another judgement of a learned Single Judge
of this Court in Harjinder Nagar Inter College and Another vs. State of U.P.11 in which the learned
Single Judge held that the ex-officio members do not have a right to participate in a no-confidence motion
against an office bearers as they also had no right to elect them. It has been held thus :-
"I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal
of the Scheme of Administration, it will be seen that as per para 5 of the Scheme, the Committee shall
consist of 15 members out of which the Principal and two teachers shall be the ex-officio members. The
Note to para 5 clearly mentions that the ex-officio members shall not take part in the selection of office
bearers. That being the position if the ex-officio members are specifically prohibited from participating in
any meeting for selection of office bearers, they also cannot participate in any meeting, ordinary or
Emergent for passing a motion of no confidence against an office bearer. If there is no right to select, there
is no right to remove either and therefore, I am in agreement with the submission of Sri P.N. Saxena,
learned senior counsel for the respondents that since the ex-officio members were prohibited from
participating in any selections they also stood prohibited by logical interpretation from participating in
any meeting held for consideration of a motion of no confidence against an office bearer.

23. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the judgement of the learned Single Judge was
upheld with the dismissal of Special Appeal No. 1881 of 2012 by a Division Bench of this Court on
4.12.2012 and the aforesaid judgements were further upheld with the summary dismissal of Special Leave
to appeal.

24. It is apposite to note that the judgement of the learned Single Judge in case of Harjinder
Nagar Inter College (supra) again does not take into consideration the provisions of Section 16-A(1) of
the Act. The Division Bench judgement in Special Appeal does not seem to agree with the view of the
learned Single Judge that the ex-officio members were not entitled to participate in a meeting of noconfidence. But ultimately the judgement of the learned Single Judge was not interfered with on the
ground that even in the absence of ex-officio members, more than 2/3 members being present, the no-
8 All. Hari Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1205
confidence motion was validly passed. The relevant observations made in this regard by the Division
Bench in Special Appeal are as under :-
"Clause 5 of the Scheme provides for Constitution of the Committee. The note appended
to Clause 5 provides that 3 ex-officio members as for example Principal and 2 teachers shall not take part
in that item of the agenda of the Committee of Management by which it appoints an ad-hoc committee for
selection of teachers. They shall also not take part in the selection of office bearers. Though prima facie it
appears that the 3 ex-officio members are not prohibited from participating in a meeting in which a noconfidence motion is moved, from paragraph 7 of the Scheme it appears that an agenda of no-confidence
motion has to be passed by 2/3rd majority of the members present in a particular meeting in which a
notice of no-confidence motion against a particular office bearer has been given.