# Rakhi Jaiswal & Ors v. C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 640
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 304 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, J. Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakhi-jaiswal-ors-v-c-m-ramkali-balika-inter-college-ors-52709
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Ashish Verma, Ajay Pratap Singh, C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether initiation of election process by an
unauthorized person who had no locus standi in
the matter, renders the entire process void ab
initio?

Headnotes
A. Education Law - Payment of Salaries of
Teachers and Other Employees Act, 1971:
Section 6(3); U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921: Section 16-DD, 16-A(7) - Subsection (7) of Section 16-A provides that
Whenever there is dispute with respect to
the Management of an institution, persons
found by the Regional Deputy Director of
Education,
upon
such
enquiry
as
is
deemed fit to be in actual control of its
affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be
recognized to constitute the Committee of
Management of such institution until a
court of competent jurisdiction directs
otherwise.

GO dated 20.10.2008 is referable to Subsection (7) of Section 16-A of the Act,

## Text

640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. In view of the above direction, this
petition (PIL) is disposed of with no order
as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 640
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.10.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY,.J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 304 of 2025

Rakhi Jaiswal & Ors ...Appellants
Versus
C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College & Ors.
Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vijay Dixit, Virendra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Verma, Ajay Pratap Singh, C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether initiation of election process by an
unauthorized person who had no locus standi in
the matter, renders the entire process void ab
initio?

Headnotes
A. Education Law - Payment of Salaries of
Teachers and Other Employees Act, 1971:
Section 6(3); U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921: Section 16-DD, 16-A(7) - Subsection (7) of Section 16-A provides that
Whenever there is dispute with respect to
the Management of an institution, persons
found by the Regional Deputy Director of
Education,
upon
such
enquiry
as
is
deemed fit to be in actual control of its
affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be
recognized to constitute the Committee of
Management of such institution until a
court of competent jurisdiction directs
otherwise.

GO dated 20.10.2008 is referable to Subsection (7) of Section 16-A of the Act,
1921.
However,
the
said
GO
dated
20.10.2008, firstly, refers to a situation
where elections have been validly held.
Only in such cases, it has been provided that
the D.I.O.S. shall take a decision regarding
attestation of signatures of the Manager of
such validly elected Managing Committee within
two weeks, however, if the D.I.O.S. finds some
legal impediment in this regard, then, he shall
refer the matter within the same period to the
Regional Committee which shall take a decision
within one month. (Para 37)

In the present case, where, the very initiation of
the process of election itself was de-hors the
law and by a person not competent in this
regard, then, the entire Election process was
void ab initio and a nullity (an aspect which the
Writ Court did not consider) and, as, there could
be no two views about it, therefore, even if, the
matter had not been referred by the D.I.O.S. to
the Regional Committee, it would not make
much of a difference.

B. As regards non presence of the observer
during such election, the process initiation of
election and request for nomination of an
observer should have been made by the
Authorized Controller, who was acting as
the Managing Committee and not by
Manager of the Society (Respondent No.
2), therefore, the very initiation of the
process of election by an incompetent
person was bad in law and any further
proceeding of election, which itself is
disputed, were void ab initio. Therefore, the
reliance placed upon the GO dated 20.10.2008,
assuming that it is applicable, though, it is the
case of the appellants that it is in the teeth of
the
statutorily
approved
scheme
of
administration, is, even otherwise, misplaced
and irrelevant, as, the very initiation of the
process of election was without jurisdiction.

Special appeal allowed. (E-4)

List of Acts
 Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees
Act,
1971;
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921; Intermediate Education
(Amendment) Act, 1958.

List of Keywords
10 All. Rakhi Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College & Ors.
641
 election, management, committee, jurisdiction,
initiation, nomination.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant(s): Vijay Dixit, Virendra Mishra
For Respondent(s): Ashish Verma, Ajay
Pratap Singh, C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vijay Dixit along with
Shri Virednra Mishra, learned counsel for
the appellants, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1
and 2 and Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. By means of this appeal the
appellants have challenged the judgment
and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the
writ Court in Writ- C No. 7013 of 2025
filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2, by
which the writ petition has been allowed
and a direction has been issued to the
District Inspector of Schools to attest the
signatures of respondent no. 2 who claims
to have been elected as Manager of the
Committee of the College.

3. Before the learned Single Judge an
order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the
District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter
referred to as 'the D.I.O.S.') was under
challenge. By the said order, the D.I.O.S.
considered attestation of signatures of
respondent no. 2 as Manager of the
Institution. In that context, he considered a
report of the Authorized Controller dated
04.04.2025, which is on record, according
to which, the provision contained in Clause
11 of the statutorily approved scheme of
administration referable to Section 16-A of
the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education
Act, 1921, which has statutory force, had
not been followed, as, the Authorized
Controller having been appointed on
07.06.2024, it was he, who had replaced the
Managing
Committee,
therefore,
any
process of election could be initiated only
through him, instead, keeping him in the
dark, entire process had been initiated and
conducted
by
the
earlier
Managing
Committee of the College and its office
bearers, which had not locus to conduct
such election. Secondly, the D.I.O.S. relied
upon a letter/report of the Principal of the
College, according to whom, no election
took place in the premises of the College
on 06.04.2025 which was the date and
venue mentioned in the notice issued by the
office bearers of the aforesaid Managing
Committee (not the Authorized Controller)
for holding of elections.

4. Based on the aforesaid evidence,
D.I.O.S. found that there was no election in
the eyes of law nor was it in accordance
with Clause 11 of the statutorily approved
scheme of administration which was
mandatory and, accordingly, he declined to
attest the signatures of respondent no. 2
herein. While doing so, he has also ordered
that Committee of Management of the
College be constituted as per law and date
be fixed for its election.

5. It is not out of place to mention that
this order dated 16.06.2025 was passed
after a judgment dated 29.05.2025 passed
in earlier writ petition filed by the
respondents no. 1 and 2 challenging
another order of the D.I.O.S. declining to
attest the signatures, which was allowed on
the ground that the affected persons had not
been heard.

6. The learned Single Judge while
allowing
the
writ
petition
of
the
respondents no. 1 and 2, after noticing the
submission of rival parties including a
private respondent who is arrayed as
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent no. 6 herein, was of the opinion
that based on the report of the Principal
dated 07.04.2025 the D.I.O.S. has formed a
view that the election was not held but this
was arbitrary in as much as for holding of
the election it was necessarily incumbent
that views of the Members who had
participated in the elections should have
been elicited. Secondly, the learned Single
Judge has opined that non sending of the
observer can not be said to be fatal to the
election in view of the Government Order
dated 02.09.2008 which was on record. In
addition to it, the learned Single Judge has
opined that the D.I.O.S. in exercise of his
powers of attestation of signatures, prima
facie, has no powers to see the validity of
the election as appeared to have been done.
Accordingly, for these three reasons the
writ petition has been allowed. The order
dated 16.06.2025 has been quashed and a
direction has been issued to the D.I.O.S. to
attest the signatures as requested by the
petitioners before him.

7. The appellants herein were not
opposite parties in the writ petition,
therefore, they have filed an application
seeking
leave
to
appeal,
to
which
objections
have
been
filed
by
the
respondents no. 1 and 2.

8. The contention of appellants on
leave to appeal was that they are members
of the general body of the Society which
elects the Committee of Management of the
College and by virtue of the said
membership they are also voters to any
election to any office of the Committee of
Management of the College and as no
elections were held, certainly not as per the
statutorily
approved
scheme
of
administration nor at the place where it was
supposed to be held as per respondents
themselves and as appellants could not
participate in it, therefore, they have an
interest and locus in the matter. In addition
to it, most of the appellants were also office
bearers of the earlier Committee of
Management of the College till an
Authorized
Controller
was
appointed.
Appellant no. 1 was its Manager, a fact
admitted by Respondents no. 1 and 2 in
Para 8 of the writ petition. Appellant No. 2
was its Vice- President and appellants no. 3
and 4 were its Members. For these reasons,
all the appellants have an interest in proper
functioning of the College, for which, a
valid election as per the statutorily
approved scheme of administration is a prerequisite, therefore, the appellants have a
right and interest in the matter to file this
appeal challenging the judgment of the
learned writ Court which is apparently
erroneous.

9. Per contra Shri Sharad Pathak,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents no. 1 and 2 submitted that in
order to make out their locus the appellants
have filed forged and fabricated objections
dated 06.04.2025, which, in fact, appears to
be ante dated and includes the names of
some persons who are not members of
general body but are employees of the
Institution. He submitted that everybody
can not be permitted to file an appeal
against the judgment of the writ Court,
even assuming that there is any error in the
same, though, not conceding to the same,
as, otherwise, there would be no finality
attached to such judgments. It was also his
submission that the respondent no. 6, in
fact, is the husband of the appellant no. 1
and he was a party in the writ petition but
has not chosen to file any appeal.

10. Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned
counsel has appeared on behalf of the
10 All. Rakhi Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College & Ors.
643
respondent no. 6 who was opposite party
no. 4 in the writ petition.

11. As regards the leave to appeal, and
in view of reasons which will follow
hereinafter, we are of the opinion that all
the appellants are members of general body
of the Society and by virtue of their
membership they are entitled to vote in any
election to the Committee of Management
of the College which has been established
by the Society, therefore, they certainly
have a right and interest in proper and
smooth functioning of the Intermediate
College, for which, a validly elected
Committee of Management is necessary
and considering the fact that it is the case of
the appellants that there was a report of the
Principal of the College that no election
whatsoever took place within the premises
of the College on 06.04.2025 which was
the date and venue for the said election and,
then, there was the report of the Authorized
Controller
who
was
managing
the
institution to the effect that no process of
election had been initiated by him and that
the one initiated and proposed by the
Managing Committee was de-hors the
statutorily
approved
scheme
of
administration, it is very difficult to accept
the contention of the respondents no. 1 and
2 that the appellants herein do not have a
right to challenge the judgment of the writ
Court which has a bearing on the
functioning
of
the
College
and
its
administration and management by a
Committee of Management, for election to
which, the appellants are also voters.

12. As regards the objections filed by
the appellants contained in Annexure No.
20 being forged and fabricated the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the respondents no. 1 and 2 was that if this
document existed, then, the husband of the
appellant no. 1 who was the opposite party
no. 4 in the writ petition would have filed
it. It is difficult to record a finding of
forgery and fabrication based on this
reasoning. To say that the document was
ante dated, there is no evidence in this
regard. The document bears receipt by
Principal and his seal. Merely because there
is some overwriting would not make much
of difference, as, these questions at best
would be disputed questions of facts. We
are of the opinion that the appellants for the
reasons given hereinabove would have a
right to challenge the judgment of the writ
Court. After all, smooth functioning of an
Intermediate College is of paramount
importance
and
this
can
not
be
compromised,
especially
when
the
appellants can not be said to be complete
strangers to the College, certainly not to the
Society nor to the functioning of the
College, some of them being earlier office
bearers of the outgoing Committee of
Management.

13. Considering the importance of the
issue involved and the facts and reasons
given hereinabove the appellants have a
right to appeal against the judgment of the
writ Court and this will also be evident
from what will be discussed hereinafter,
especially as, even after the observation by
the writ court that the D.I.O.S. arbitrarily
accepted the report of the Principal without
eliciting the views of the members of
general body as to whether any elections
were held or not, instead of remanding the
matter back to the D.I.O.S. or for that
matter the Writ Court itself inquiring as to
whether any such election was held,
assuming that it could do so, learned Single
Judge has straightaway allowed the writ
petition and directed the D.I.O.S. to attest
the signatures of the respondent no. 2,
meaning thereby, without any finding on
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
validity of the report of the Principal dated
07.04.2025 and without any finding on the
issue as to whether any election was
actually held or not at the venue fixed for
the said purpose; whether it was held as per
statutorily
approved
scheme
of
administration, the writ petition has been
allowed, therefore, the appellants, for the
reasons aforesaid, certainly have a right and
interest to challenge the same.

14. Accordingly, the application for
leave to appeal bearing No. 1 of 2025 is
allowed.

15. During the course of argument the
learned counsel for the parties also
addressed us on merits of the matter.

16. Now, when we consider the merits
of the appeal, we have already discussed
the reasons given by learned writ Court
while allowing the writ petition.

17. We must point out that the
Authorized Controller who was managing
the Institution was not impleaded as an
opposite party in the writ petition. In our
view, he was a necessary party, as one of
the questions to be considered was as to
who was authorized to initiate and hold the
elections under the statutorily approved
scheme of administration of Institution and
there was a report of the Authorized
Controller himself that he was the person
authorized to initiate and conduct the
election not only as per the statutorily
approved scheme of administration because
he had stepped into the shoes of the
Managing Committee of the College which
was no longer functional, but, also because
the order of his appointment itself stated
that he was required to get the elections
conducted.

18.
Report
of
the
Authorized
Controller was one of the materials taken
into consideration by the D.I.O.S. but
nothing has been said by the learned Single
Judge on this count as to whether the
election was initiated and got conducted by
the competent authority and without
considering this issue the writ petition has
been allowed in the manner already stated
hereinabove.

19. Further, the D.I.O.S. at the time of
considering attestation of signatures of a
person who claims to have been validly
elected as Manager of a College, though, he
was not required to adjudicate disputes
between two rival Committees claiming a
right to manage the Institution nor to decide
any complicated dispute pertaining to
elections and its validity, but, he was
certainly required to see as to whether the
person who is staking claim, his signatures
are liable to be attested or not, and, in this
context, he was certainly required to see,
firstly, as to whether any elections
whatsoever were held or not. If he found
for valid reasons and material before him
that no election was held, then, he could
not be compelled to attest the signatures of
such a person. Secondly, in this process, at
least, prima facie, he was entitled to see as
to who has initiated or conducted the
elections, whether he was competent to do
so under the statutorily approved scheme of
administration or not, as, if he apparently
found that the elections, were initiated or
got conducted by somebody who was not
authorized to do so under law, then, it
would not be a question of considering
validity of an election, but, a situation there
was no election as per law and he could not
be compelled to attest the signatures of a
person claiming rights as Manager based
on such election. He is not supposed to be a
post office while considering attestation of
10 All. Rakhi Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College & Ors.
645
signature of any person as Manager of the
College.

20. Of course, he can not conduct a
roving inquiry into the validity of elections
of a nature which may involve disputed and
complicated questions of fact but he can
certainly ascertain, firstly, as to whether
any election process was initiated by the
competent authority whether in terms of the
statutorily
approved
scheme
of
administration
or
in
the
event
of
supersession of Managing Committee by
the Authorized Controller; whether it was
conducted by such competent authority.
Secondly,
whether
prima
facie
any
elections at all were held on the date time
and venue fixed for the said purpose by the
competent authority or not. This limited
exercise is not beyond his jurisdiction
while considering attestation of signatures
and if he undertakes it, it can not be said
that he has decided validity of the elections,
as, in such a scenario there is no election in
accordance with law nor in accordance
with the statutorily approved scheme of
administration. This fundamental illegality
could not be ignored by the D.I.O.S.
Learned Single Judge appears to have lost
sight of this factual and legal position.

21. The learned Single Judge has thus
erred in allowing the writ petition on the
premise that the D.I.O.S. had decided the
validity of the election. With respect, the
D.I.O.S. has not decided the validity of the
election stricto sensuo in the sense that he
has not entered into any complicated
dispute of rival parties claiming to be
elected or pertaining to elections. What he
has decided is that there was no election at
all at the time and date fixed for the said
purpose at the venue prescribed and also
that the competent authority i.e. Authorized
Controller did not initiate the process of
election nor got it held. These were not
issues which could not be seen by the
D.I.O.S. In our opinion the D.I.O.S. was
well within his rights to conduct a limited
inquiry which he did as to whether the
elections were held or not, as also, whether
the election was initiated and held by
competent persons or not. To this extent at
least in the facts of this case he could not
be faulted and he has not stated anything
beyond that.

22. Ignoring these relevant aspects the
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petition without any counter affidavit
having been filed by the D.I.O.S.

23. The writ petition was filed on
17.07.2025 and it has been decided on
14.08.2025.
Neither
the
Authorized
Controller was impleaded as an opposite
party nor did he file any counter affidavit
nor the D.I.O.S. filed any counter affidavit.
It was not a matter which could have been
decided at the initial stage in the manner in
which it has been done.

24. Further, he has also lost sight of
the fact that an Authorized Controller had
been appointed under Section 6(3) of the
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act, 1971') which clearly provides
for supersession of the Management for
such period not exceeding one year as may
be
specified in the order
and
for
authorization of any person referred to as
Authorized Controller to take over the
management of the institution for the said
period. Sub-section 4 of Section 6 of the
Act, 1971 further clarifies the position by
saying that on an order being made under
sub-section (3) the Authorised Controller
shall, to the exclusion of the management
and subject only to the directions, if any,
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Regional Deputy Director of
Education, the Director or the State
Government, exercise all the powers and
perform
all
the
functions
of
the
management, including management of
the property belonging to or vested in the
institution, and in particular, operate singly
the bank account referred to in Section 5
subject of course to the proviso contained
therein.

25. As such, the Authorized Controller
steps
into
shoes
of
the
Managing
Committee and the latter ceases to manage
the Institution and has no role whatsoever
to perform any further in any context,
especially regarding holding of elections
and, wherever the statutorily approved
scheme of administration requires any
action by any office bearer of the Managing
Committee, then, such action will have to
be taken by the Authorized Controller and
not by the erstwhile Managing Committee.

26. Section 6(3) and (4) of the Act,
1971 clearly indicates that the Authorized
Controller steps into the shoes of the
Management which ceases to function.
Therefore, merely because the Authorized
Controller was appointed under the Act,
1971 and not under Section 16-DD of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
does not make any difference.

27. We may in this context refer to the
definition of Management as contained in
Section 2(d) of the said Act, 1971,
according to which, Management, in
relation to any institution, means the
committee of Management constituted in
accordance
with
the
Scheme
of
administration, if any, and includes the
Manager or other person vested with the
authority to manage and conduct the affairs
of the institution.

28. It was not a case where single hand
operation had been ordered under the Act,
1971 where, only for the purposes of
signing the salary bills the Management is
divested of its powers but continues to
manage the institution otherwise, but, it
was a case where an Authorized Controller
had been appointed under Sub-section (3)
of Section 6 of the Act, 1971 by
superseding the Managing Committee,
therefore, the Managing Committee ceased
to manage the College.

29. It is undisputed that the Authorized
Controller, who was not even arrayed as an
opposite party in the writ petition, was
managing
the
Institution.
Even
the
Authorised Controller was not present at
the time of alleged election.

30. Now, we may consider the Scheme
of Administration. As per Section 16-A(1)
of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921
notwithstanding anything in any law,
document, or decree or order of a Court or
other instrument, there shall be a Scheme
of Administration for every institution,
whether recognized 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 vested with
authority to manage and conduct the affairs
of the institution.

31. Now, it is not in dispute that there
is a Scheme of Administration pertaining to
the institution in question which has been
approved under Section 16-A of the Act,
1921. Clause 11 of which is relevant and it
reads as under:-

11. चुनाि प्रकक्रया
1- प्रबन्ि सलमनत का कायाकाि समाप्त
होने के तीन माह पूिा ह चुनाि कराये
10 All. Rakhi Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College & Ors.
647
जाने की प्रकक्रया प्रारम्ि कर ि जायेगी।
इस हेतु प्रबन्ि सलमनत नयी कायाकाररणी
के गठन हेतु सािारण सिा के सिापनत से
अनुरोि
करेगी।
सािारण
सिा
के
सिापनत प्रबन्ि सलमनत के अनुरोि पत्र
को संिग्न करते हुए जजिा विद्यािय
ननर क्षक से चुनाि हेतु पयािेक्षक की मांग
करेंगे।

यदि प्रबन्ि सलमनत चुनाि कराये जाने
हेतु अनुरोि पत्र सािारण सिा के
सिापनत को नह ं सौपती है तो सािारण
सिा के 1/3 सिस्य सिापनत महोिय से
चुनाि कराये जाने हेतु ननिेिन कर सकते
हैं।

सािारण सिा के 1/3 सिस्यों के अनुरोि
पर िी चुनाि हेतु बैठक नह ं बुिायी जाती
है तो िे जजिा विद्यािय ननर क्षक से
चुनाि हेतु अनुरोि कर सकेंगे। इन
सिस्यों के अनुरोि पर जजिा विद्यािय
ननर क्षक पयािेक्षक ननयुक्त करते हुए
चुनाि हेतु नतचथ, स्थान एिं समय
ननिााररत करेगा, जजसकी सूचना सािारण
सिा के सिापनत को िेगा। बैठक में
सिापनत की अनुपजस्थनत की िशा में
चुनाि के समय उपजस्थत सिस्य आपस
में लमिकर ककसी एक को बैठक का
सिापनत बनायेंगे।

पुनचच स्पष्ट ककया जाता है कक प्रत्येक
िशा में प्रबन्ि सलमनत का चुनाि जजिा
विद्यािय
ननर क्षक
द्िारा
ननयुक्त
पयािेक्षक की उपजस्थनत एिं ननयन्त्रण में
ननिााररत नतचथ स्थि एिं समय पर ह
होगा।

शासनािेश
संख्या-1009/15-9-200825(04)/ 2008 दिनांक 02-09-2008 के
अनुसार प्रबन्ि सलमनत के चुनाि हेतु
संस्था अचिकार द्िारा पयािेक्षक की मांग
ककये जाने पर जजिा विद्यािय ननर क्षक
द्िारा अचिकतम 07 दिन के अन्िर
प्रबन्ि सलमनत के गठन हेतु चुनाि कराये
जाने के लिये पयािेक्षक नालमत कर दिया
जायेगा।

32. The very opening line of Clause 11
makes it clear that process of election of a
Committee of Management is to be
initiated by the existing Committee of
Management of the College three months
prior to expiry of its terms, meaning
thereby, the said clause applies where the
process is initiated by the Committee of
Management of the College while its tenure
has not expired and it is still functioning. In
this case, it is beyond cavil that vide order
dated 07.06.2024 the earlier Committee of
Management was superseded and an
Authorised Controller was appointed in its
place, therefore, on a bare reading of
Clause 11 the same would not apply strictro
sensuo because it was not a case of
initiation
of
election
process
during
subsistence
of
the
earlier
Managing
Committee but after its supersession. Even
otherwise, firstly, the managing Committee
referred in Clause 11 is of the College and
not the Society which has to make a request
to the Chairman of the general body of the
Society requesting for initiation of process
of election to the Managing Committee of
the College. Secondly, once the Authorised
Controller had been appointed, the word
'Managing Committee' used in Clause 11,
in the facts of this case, would mean the
Authorized Controller, as, he had taken
over the Management of the Institution and
the erstwhile Managing Committee was no
longer
functional
nor
in
existence,
therefore, this process should have been
initiated under Clause 11 by the Authorized
Controller, instead, the Manager of the
Managing Committee of the Society
initiated it and claims to have got the
elections conducted. In fact, the order of
appointment of Authorised Controller dated
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
07.06.2024 also specifically mentioned that
he would ensure holding of the elections.
The elections could not be held earlier as
there was a dispute pertaining to Member
of the general body of the Society, which,
according to the respondents, came to be
decided only in March, 2025. There was
some dispute relating to members of the
general body which as per the respondents
no. 1 and 2 was decided only in March,
2025, therefore, the elections to the
Committee of Management of the College
could not be held earlier, although, it is the
case of the appellants that even this order
was
erroneously
passed,
for
recall/
objection
to
which,
proceedings
are
pending before the Registrar.

33. The learned Single Judge has
failed to consider the moot question as to
whether the process of election was
initiated and conducted by the competent
authority who could only be the Authorized
Controller. In fact, he has not at all
recorded
any
finding
regarding
the
appointment of Authorized Controller on
07.06.2024 inter alia for holding elections
to Committee of Management of College,
its impact on the entire subject matter and
application of the statutorily approved
scheme of administration of the College for
the purposes of elections specifically
Clause 11 thereof. In fact, Authorized
Controller was not even a party before the
writ Court yet it has allowed the writ
petition with a direction to the D.I.O.S. to
attest the signatures of the respondent no. 2.

34. It is not out of place to mention
that the general body of the Society is also
the general body for the College, though,
the
Committee
of
Managements
are
different. The Respondent no. 2 (Petitioner
no. 2) was not the Manager of the outgoing
Committee of Management of the College.
Appellant no. 1 was its Manager.

35. Further, it is the case of the
appellants as also the Principal of the
College vide his letter dated 07.04.2025
and the D.I.O.S. that though 06.04.2025
was the date fixed for the election and the
venue was the premises of the Intermediate
College, Committee of Management of
which was to be elected, but, no elections
were held on the said date in the premises
of the college. Of course, the learned
counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2
claims otherwise and in this process they
rely on certain photographs but these
photographs are hardly of any help to
ascertain the place to which they may
pertain. These are all questions of fact and
are disputed, none of which have been
adverted nor decided by the writ court. The
writ Court has not considered as to whether
these facts could be decided in writ
jurisdiction. If not, whether a finding
recorded by the D.I.O.S. could have been
interfered with or not and whether a
direction could have been issued to him to
attest the signatures of the Respondent-
petitioner no. 2 without deciding these
issues?

36. Moreover, as already stated, once
the Principal says that no election was held
within the premises of the College and the
learned Single Judge himself says that he
could/should have elicited the response of
other members of the general body to
ascertain as to whether elections were held
or not, then, he should have decided this
issue as to whether elections were held on
the date and venue fixed, as far as possible,
but there is no way that the writ petition
could have been allowed in favour of the
respondent no. 2 with a direction to attest
her signatures without deciding such issue.
10 All. Rakhi Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College & Ors.
649

37. During course of hearing a
reference was made to the Government
Order dated 20.10.2008 referable to Section
16-A(7) of the Act, 1921 to contend that it
is a Regional Committee headed by the
Joint Director which alone could have
taken a decision with regard to the elections
in question and attestation of signatures.
Sub-section (7) of Section 16-A provides
that whenever there is dispute with respect
to the Management of an institution,
persons found by the Regional Deputy
Director of Education, upon such enquiry
as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its
affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be
recognized to constitute the Committee of
Management of such institution until a
court of competent jurisdiction directs
otherwise.
Government
Order
dated
20.10.2008 is referable to Sub-section (7)
of Section 16-A of the Act, 1921. However,
we have perused the said Government
Order dated 20.10.2008. Firstly, it refers to
a situation where elections have been
validly held. Only in such cases, it has been
provided that the D.I.O.S. shall take a
decision regarding attestation of signatures
of the Manager of such validly elected
Managing Committee within two weeks,
however, if the D.I.O.S. finds some legal
impediment in this regard, then, he shall
refer the matter within the same period to
the Regional Committee which shall take a
decision within one month. We are of the
considered opinion, purely in the facts of
this case, that, where, the very initiation of
the process of election itself was de-hors
the law and by a person not competent in
this regard, then, the entire Election process
was void ab initio and a nullity and, as,
there could be no two views about it,
therefore, even if, the matter had not been
referred by the D.I.O.S. to the Regional
Committee, it would not make much of a
difference. Purely in the facts of this case,
this contention also does not persuade us to
remand the matter to the Regional
Committee. It is not a case where rival
persons were claiming to have been elected
or there was a dispute between rivals
pertaining to Management of institution but
one where the entire process of election had
been initiated and held by a person who
had no authority in this regard, as already
discussed, meaning thereby, the entire
process was void ab initio and a nullity, an
aspect which the Writ Court did not
consider.

38. As regards non presence of the
observer during such election, no doubt
Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the
respondents no. 1 and 2 submitted that an
application for nomination of an observer
was submitted by the Committee of
Management whereupon the D.I.O.S. wrote
to the Authorized Controller who is a
Government Official and therefore, there
was
no
basis
for
Committee
of
Management to believe that the observer
had been declined and it presumed that
Authorized Controller would act as the
observer but, this contention is fallacious,
firstly, for the reason that the process
initiation of election and request for
nomination of an observer should have
been made by the Authorized Controller,
who
was
acting
as
the
Managing
Committee and not by Manager of the
Society (Respondent No. 2), therefore, the
very initiation of the process of election by
an incompetent person was bad in law and
any further proceeding of election, which
itself is disputed, were void ab initio.
Therefore, the reliance placed upon the
Government
Order
dated
20.10.2008,
assuming that it is applicable, though, it is
the case of the appellants that it is in the
teeth of the statutorily approved scheme of
administration,
is,
even
otherwise,
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
misplaced and irrelevant, as, the very
initiation of the process of election was
without jurisdiction.

39. As the facts and legal position are
apparent before us, we see no reason to
remand the matter back to the learned
Single Judge or to the Regional Committee
headed by the Joint Director, as, apparently
initiation of the process of election was by
an unauthorized person who had no locus
standi in the matter and it is the Authorized
Controller of the College alone who could
have initiated the process of election as per
law and ensured its conduct. In view of this
singular and fundamental jurisdictional
error, all other issues, even though we have
dealt
with
the
same,
pale
into
insignificance.

40. For all these reason, we are of the
opinion that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge can not be sustained and it is
accordingly quashed.

41. We have been informed that the
respondent no. 2's signatures have been
attested subsequent to passing of the
impugned judgment. Be that at it may, such
attestation is a consequence of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge
which we have quashed, therefore, any
consequential action is also quashed. The
Authorized Controller shall continue to
manage the Institution, as earlier.

42.
We
accordingly,
direct
the
Authorized
Controller
to
initiate the
process of election to the Committee of
Management of the College strictly in
accordance
with
statutorily
approved
scheme of administration and take it to its
logical conclusion, at the earliest say within
a period of two months. The Authorized
Controller shall function as such under the
order of this Court, subject to the
provisions of Sub -section (3) and (4) of
Section 6 of the Act, 1971 and if any orders
are required to be passed by the competent
authority to extend his term in this regard,
the same would be passed forthwith.

43. The special appeal is allowed.

44. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 650
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 3515 of 2023

Smt. Sheela Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aditya Prakash Verma, Shailesh Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Chandan Sharma, Vaibhav Dixit, Yashwant
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Entitlement of widowed daughter of deceased
employee of Nagar Nagam to receive the family
pension.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Family pension -
Deceased-employee of Nagar Nigam was
died in harness - Widowed daughter -
Entitlement - Earlier, widow of deceasedemployee was paid family pension - Effect
- Claim was rejected on the ground that
Government Orders, providing for benefit
of pension/ family pension, payable to
retired employees of the Nigam and their
unmarried/
widowed/
divorced