Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civ. Misc. Writ Petn. No. 34553 of 1994

Advocates

Sri Shashi Nandan
S.C.

Judges

N.L Ganguly, J.

Acts

S. 19A read with S. 28 of the U.P General Clauses Act
provisions of S. 19A of the U.P General Clauses Act
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT 1921
S. 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act
Uttar Pradesh Act,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Civil Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 36777 & 34553 of 1994)

Factual and Procedural Background

Two connected writ petitions concern managerial disputes at Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahuwa, District Bijnor. Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994 (filed by Sri Praveen Singh Tyagi as President of the Committee of Management) challenged the Dy. Director of Education's order dated 12-10-1994 that appointed an authorised controller empowered with committee powers and directed holding elections. Writ Petition No. 36777 of 1994 (filed by Sri Rajendra Singh) sought certiorari to quash the District Inspector of Schools' (D.I.O.S.) order dated 1-10-1994 approving the election of office-bearers held on 29-4-1994.

The parties exchanged affidavits; the standing counsel did not file a counter-affidavit and did not oppose deciding the petitions on the basis of existing affidavits. An earlier writ petition (No. 28426 of 1994) had led to this Court quashing an earlier approval order of the D.I.O.S. dated 12-8-1994 and directing the D.I.O.S. to consider the observer's and election officer's recommendation and pass a speaking order.

Key facts admitted by the parties: the institution is recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and governed by a Scheme of Administration; the last valid election of the committee of management took place on 17-3-1991; under Clause 8 of the Scheme the committee's tenure is three years and, if a newly elected committee does not take charge within that period, the term ends after three years and one month. It was undisputed that the term of the committee elected on 17-3-1991 expired on 16-4-1994.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the D.I.O.S.'s order dated 1-10-1994 approving and recognising the election of office-bearers held on 29-4-1994 was legally valid, given that the election occurred after the three years plus one month period prescribed in the Scheme of Administration.
Whether the Dy. Director of Education (D.D.E.) had jurisdiction to appoint an authorised controller (Prabandh Sanchalak) to manage the institution and hold elections when the D.I.O.S. had not referred the matter under S.16A(7) or Clause (B) of the Scheme.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36777 (represented by Sri Ashok Bhushan) argued that the election of 29-4-1994 was beyond the competence of the outgoing committee because the last valid election was on 17-3-1991, so the permissible period (three years plus one month) expired by 17-4-1994. Therefore, the election held on 29-4-1994 was void and the D.I.O.S.'s approval could not be sustained.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 34553 (represented by Sri Shashi Nandan) argued that the D.D.E.'s order appointing an authorised controller (dated 12-10-1994) was without jurisdiction because the D.I.O.S. had not referred the matter under S.16A(7) or Clause (B) of the Scheme to the D.D.E. and therefore the D.D.E. was not the proper authority to examine or annul the D.I.O.S.'s approval.
Additional factual objections were raised before the D.D.E.: certain persons participating in the 29-4-1994 election were not competent members (relations among members, ineligibility due to criminal conviction under S.436 I.P.C. alleged against one member), and the election was said to be contrary to Chapter III, Rule 4 and para (6) of the Scheme of Administration.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents contended that the relevant date for calculating the permissible period was the date on which the last election (17-3-1991) was approved (allegedly 24-4-1994), and that the committee took charge on that approval date; thus, the election held on 29-4-1994 could be argued to be within the permissible timeframe if the approval date were treated as the relevant starting point.
It was also argued that observers and election officers were appointed for the 29-4-1994 election (with evidence of appointment and reports submitted), and that no objections were filed by the committee or members about the election officer; the election was unopposed and the observer and election officer reported accordingly.
For W.P. No. 34553, respondents (via Sri Ashok Bhushan representing the opposite side in that petition) argued that the D.D.E. possessed jurisdiction under Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak (authorised controller) where elections had not been held within the prescribed period, and that the D.D.E. properly exercised that jurisdiction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
1993 (1) UPLBEC 344 — Ram Kirpal Singh v. Committee of Management, Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newarhia, Dist. Jaunpur	Support for the proposition that an outgoing committee under S.16A/Scheme may hold elections only within three years plus one month; limits on competence of outgoing committee to hold belated elections.	The court relied on this decision as part of settled law establishing that the election of 29-4-1994 (held after three years plus one month) could not be sustained and the D.I.O.S.'s approval was invalid.
1994 (3) UPLBEC 1728 (DB) — Committee of Management, Brig. Hoshiar Singh Inter College, Shamli v. Dy. Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut (DB)	Considered whether the date of recognition/approval by the D.I.O.S. is relevant for calculating the committee's term; observed recognition by D.I.O.S. is necessary under the Scheme.	The court considered the precedent and noted that no clause in the present Scheme provided that term begins from the date of D.I.O.S. approval; thus the respondent's reliance on such a timing argument was rejected in the present facts.
1994 (2) UPLBEC 800 — Committee of Management, Brig. Hoshiyar Singh Memorial Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shamli v. Dy. Director of Education (DB)	Used alongside other cases to support limits on the outgoing committee's competence to conduct elections beyond the prescribed period.	The court treated this decision as consistent with the line of authority that a belated election beyond three years plus one month is not permissible and cannot be validated by the approving authority.
1991 (2) UPLBEC 1183 — Committee of Management v. Dy. Director of Education, Region, Varanasi	Held that recognition by the D.I.O.S. is necessary for the new committee under the Scheme of Administration.	The court referenced this earlier decision (as considered in the 1994 DB decision) in evaluating whether the approval date could be the operative date for tenure calculation, ultimately finding no Scheme provision to support the respondents' submission in the present case.
1988 (2) UPLBEC 1057 — Committee of Management, Shri Gandhi Inter College v. D.D.E.	Established that the Regional D.D.E. has authority under Clause 8 to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak where no valid election has been held within the prescribed period; the D.D.E. has an implied power to enquire into and adjudicate the validity of a belated election and to appoint a controller when conditions are met.	The court relied extensively on this precedent (quoting para 4) to hold that the D.D.E. was competent to inquire into the validity of the election held on 29-4-1994 and to appoint an authorised controller under Clause 8 of the Scheme; this supported dismissal of W.P. No. 34553.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by establishing the relevant admitted facts and the applicable Scheme provisions: the institution is recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; Clause 8 of the Scheme fixes the committee's tenure at three years and provides that if a new committee does not take charge within three years, the term ends after three years and one month.

Applying those admissions, the court calculated the operative periods: the committee elected on 17-3-1991 had its tenure end on 16-3-1994 and, with the one-month extension, at the latest on 17-4-1994. The election contested (29-4-1994) was therefore beyond the permitted period.

The petitioner argued that the belated election could not be the act of a competent body and that the D.I.O.S.'s approval could not validate an election held beyond the permitted period. The respondent argued that the date of approval of the last election (allegedly 24-4-1994) could serve as the relevant date for calculating tenure, and pointed to appointments of observer/election officer and their reports in support of the election's validity.

The court addressed the respondents' timing argument by reference to the Scheme's text (Clause 8 reproduced in the opinion) and earlier decisions. It found no clause in the Scheme that provided that the committee's term begins from the date of D.I.O.S. approval; hence the respondents' contention lacked merit. The court treated the settled law (as cited) to conclude that an election held after three years plus one month was beyond the authority of the outgoing committee and could not be validated by subsequent approval.

Consequently, the court quashed the D.I.O.S.'s order dated 1-10-1994 approving the 29-4-1994 election. On the separate question in W.P. No. 34553 (challenge to the D.D.E.'s appointment of an authorised controller), the court considered the precedents, especially the 1988 (2) UPLBEC 1057 decision, and the Scheme's Clause 8, concluding that the D.D.E. had the necessary jurisdiction and implied ancillary powers (including under S.19A of the U.P. General Clauses Act and S.28 referenced) to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak and to enquire into the existence of conditions that authorize such appointment.

Having applied the statutory scheme and the cited precedents to the admitted facts, the court reached a bifurcated outcome: it set aside the D.I.O.S.'s approval of the 29-4-1994 election, but upheld the D.D.E.'s exercise of power in appointing an authorised controller.

Holding and Implications

Holding:
Writ Petition No. 36777 of 1994: ALLOWED — the D.I.O.S. order dated 1-10-1994 (Annexure 5) approving the election of office-bearers held on 29-4-1994 is quashed.
Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994: DISMISSED — the D.D.E.'s order dated 12-10-1994 appointing an authorised controller is upheld.

Implications and immediate consequences:

The court's decision directly nullifies the D.I.O.S.'s approval of the unopposed election conducted on 29-4-1994 as being beyond the power of the outgoing committee under the Scheme; that election is held void for the purposes of administrative recognition.
The D.D.E. retained jurisdiction under Clause 8 of the Scheme (and by necessary implication under S.19A of the U.P. General Clauses Act) to appoint an authorised controller where elections have not been validly held within the prescribed period; that administrative action stands.
The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The opinion applies existing line law to the facts; the judgment follows and applies earlier authorities rather than announcing a novel legal principle in these proceedings.

Order made accordingly.

Show full summary ...

The Committee Of Management, Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. The Deputy Director Of Education .

1. These two writ petitions are connected concerning the same educational institution challenging the orders of the D.I.O.S and Dy. Director of Education in managerial dispute between the parties. The parties have exchanged affidavits. The learned standing counsel has not filed any counter affidavit and does not propose to file any counter affidavit. He stated that the writ petitions be decided on the basis of the affidavits filed by the contesting private parties. Thus I consider it appropriate that instead of passing formal orders for admission the petitions may be finally disposed of with the consent of the parties.

2. Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994 has been filed by Sri Praveen Singh Tyagi as President of the Committee of Management of Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahuwa, district Bijnor challenging the order dated 12-10-1994 passed by the Dy. Director of Education by which he directed for appointment of authorised controller empowering him with the powers of committee of management and also for holding the election of the committee of management. The election dated 29-4-1994 claimed to have been held electing (sic).

3. An application under O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C was filed by Sri Rajendra Singh, who had claimed himself to be a life member of the general body. The said application was allowed by the order dated 27-10-1994. The said application was moved through Sri Ashok Bhushan, who had already filed caveat on behalf of Prakash, Jaswant Singh, Mahesh Chandra and Rajendra Singh. Rajendra Singh was not initially arrayed as O.P, who has been added as O.P on his application for impleadment.

4. The writ petition was not admitted and the parties were directed to exchange the affidavits. By the interim order dated 27-10-1994 the operation of the order dated 12-10-1994 impugned in the writ petition was stayed.

5. Writ Petition No. 36777 of 1994 was filed by Sri Rajendra Singh by which a writ of certiorari was prayed for quashing the order dated 1-10-1994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. By the impugned order the D.I.O.S has approved the election of office-bearers held on 29-4-1994.

6. After hearing Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36777 of 1994 and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994 the fact that the Janta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahuwa, district Bijnor is a recognised institution under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is governed by the Scheme of Administration approved by the Dy. Director of Education is admitted. It is also admitted by the parties that the last election of the committee of management was held on 17-3-91 in which Sri Girish Chandra was elected as Manager and Sri Praveen Singh Tyagi as President of the committee of management.

7. According to the Scheme of Administration clause 8 the tenure of the committee of management is three years. It is also provided in the Scheme that if a new committee of a management does not take charge within the said period of three years, the term of committee of management will automatically come to an end after expiry of three years and one month.

8. It is also not disputed that the tenure of the elected committee of management, which took place on 17-3-1991 came to an end of 16-4-1994. It is also settled law that within one month from the expiry of the term of committee of management, the newly elected office-bearers may take over charge of the management. The petitioner pleads and appears as a fact from the order of the D.I.O.S that the committee of management which took over charge on the basis of election dated 17-3-1991 had not been able to take steps for holding fresh election within the prescribed period as provided in the Scheme of Administration.

9. The respondents claim to have got the election of the committee of management held on 29-4-1994 an the election of the office-bearers in the said election was approved by the D.I.O.S by his order dated 12-8-1994.

10. A writ petition, being writ petition No. 28426 of 1994 was filed before this Court challenging the recognition and approval of the election of office-bearers of the committee of management held on 29-4-1994. After exchange of affidavits in the said writ petition Hon'ble B.K Singh, J. was pleased to allow the writ petition quashing the order of the D.I.O.S dated 12-8-1994 approving and recognising the election of office-bearers of the committee of management held on 29-4-1994. This Court was pleased to direct that the D.I.O.S shall consider the recommendation of the observer and election officer and also pass a speaking order about the correctness of the election of the office-bearers within a period of one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of the High Court's order. The order of the High Court dated 31-8-1994 is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

11. The D.I.O.S by the impugned order dated 1-10-1994, Annexure 5 to the writ petition, after hearing the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the observer in the election held on 29-4-1994, was appointed and no objection had been filed by the committee of management or any member about the election officer. The election was held without any contest. The election officer and the observer had submitted a report about the unopposed election of the office-bearers. He referred to the names of office-bearers and members in the order and also referred to Cls. 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the Scheme of Administration and also observed that in case of dispute about membership or office-bearers the President's decision shall be final. He also observed that in case there was dispute about rival committees of management, in such circumstances on a reference by the D.I.O.S under S. 16A(7) the Regional D.D.E shall consider and decide such dispute.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the D.I.O.S after quashing of his earlier order had not adverted to the legal question that required consideration and adjudication by him. He submitted that the election of the office-bearers was held contrary to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration. He submitted that the last election having been held on 17-3-1991, the tenure expired on 16-3-1994 and the election held on 29-4-1994 was beyond the competence of the out-going committee of management.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashok Bhushan placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1993 (1) UPLBEC 344, Ram Kirpal Singh v. Committee of Management, Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newarhia, District Jaunpur; 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1728 (DB), Committee of Management, Brig. Hoshiar Singh Inter College, Shamli District Muzaffarnagar v. Dy. Director of Education 1st Region, Meerut (DB) and 1994 (2) UPLBEC 800, Committee of Management, Brig. Hoshiyar Singh Memorial Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shamli v. Dy. Director of Education (DB) for the proposition that the outgoing committee of management of an educational institution governed under S. 16A of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 could only hold election for the committee of management within the period of three years one month. From the facts of the case it is clear and also finding of the D.I.O.S that last election of the committee of management was held on 17-3-1991 and the election of committee of management under consideration was held on 29-4-1994, the only conclusion possible is that three years period from 17-3-1991 would expire on 16-3-1994 and additional one month period would extend it maximum to 17-4-1994. From these facts it is abundantly clear that the election held on 29-4-1994 was beyond three years one month period. In vie w of the settled law of this Court the order of the D.I.O.S approving the election of the committee of management held on 29-4-1994, on the said date on the basis on uncontested election as reported by the observer and the election officer cannot be sustained in law. The election held on 29-4-1994 was patently beyond the prescribed period as provided in the Scheme of Administration approved under S. 16A of the Intermediate Education Act. This period could not be extended and the alleged unopposed and uncontested election held on 29-4-1994 allegedly held by the out-going committee of management is wholly without authority and its competence.

14. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Shashi Nandan that the last election of the committee of management held on 17-3-1991 was approved on 24-4-1994 on which date the committee of management took over charge would be the date for calculating the period for holding the election. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the D.I.O.S had passed orders on 29-4-1994 appointing observer and election officer for holding election: One person was nominated by the D.I.O.S who had died and it was on 26-4-1994 another person, namely, Narain Singh, was nominated by the D.I.O.S and election was held on 29-4-1994 in presence of the aforesaid persons who submitted report to the D.I.O.S The question whether the date of approval of the last election by the D.I.O.S would be relevant for consideration for calculating the period and competence of outgoing committee of management was considered by the Division Bench in the case reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1728 (supra). In part 4 of the said judgment the Division Bench considered the decision of the earlier Division Bench, reported in 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1183, Committee of Management V. Dy. Director of Education v. Region, Varanasi. The Division Bench in the case reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1728 was pleased to observe that under the Scheme of Administration of the College the recognition of the new committee of management by the D.I.O.S was necessary, as held in the case reported in 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1183. In the present case the learned counsel for the respondent has not placed any document to show that there was any clause in the Scheme of Administration of the institution, which may provide that the term of committee of management would begin from the date of approval of the D.I.O.S for the election of office-bearers. A copy of the Scheme of Administration has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 1. Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration is reproduced as under:

“(8). Pratham Samiti Ka Karyakal:

Padadhikari Evam Samiti Ke Sadasyon Ka Karyakal Teen Varsh Hoga. Karya Avadhi Samapt Hojane Par Agle Ek Mas Tak Hi Padadhikari Bane Reh Sakenge. Yadi Teen Varsh Ke Bad Ek Mah Ke Andar Nav Chainat Samiti Kkryabhar Grahan Nahin Karti To Teen Varsh Ek Mah Bad Kalatit Samiti Ka Karyakal Swatah Samapt Samjha Jaiga Aur Sambhagiya Up Shiksha Nideshak Dwara Manoneet Ek Vyakti Prabandha Sanchalak Karyarat Mana Jaiga Jise Prabandhadhikaran Ke Poorn Adhikar Honge. Vah Prabandha Sanchalak Nav Chayanit Samiti Ko Shighratishighra Karyarat Karayega Aur Yadi Chunao Nahi Hua Hai To Chunao Karake Chayanit Samiti Ko Karyarat Karayega Aur Yadi Prabandha Samitiyon Main Adhikar Ka Cawa Hai To Jiske Paksh Main Sambhagiya Up Shiksha Nideshak Ka Nirnaya House Karyarat Karaiga.”

15. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent has no merit and is liable to be repelled in view of the above clause in the Scheme of Administration.

16. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the definite opinion that the order of the D.I.O.S approving the election of the office bearers elected on 29-4-1994 is liable to be quashed. Thus the writ petition No. 36777 of 1994 is liable to be allowed and the order dated 1-10-1994, Annexure 5 to the writ petition is quashed.

17. In Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994 filed by Sri Praveen Singh Tyagi challenging the order dated 12-10-1994 passed by the D.D.E appointing authorised controller for holding the election of the office-bearers of the committee of management, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted firstly that when the D.I.O.S had not made any reference under S. 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act or under Cl. (B) of the Scheme of Administration to the D.D.E, the order of the D.D.E dated 12-10-1994 appointing authorised controller for holding election of office-bearers of the committee of management is without jurisdiction and patently illegal. Secondly, Sri Shashi Nandan submitted that the observations in the order of the Dy. Director of Education that the persons participating in the election held on 29-4-1994 were not competent members of the committee and they were related to each other. It is said that if members submitted objection dated 3-10-1994 and the D.E.F found that the election held on 29-4-1994 was not held in accordance with Chapter III, R. 4 and was in violation of para (6) of the Scheme of Administration. Sri Praveen Singh President is father of Sri Satish Chandra, member of the committee. Sri Praveen Singh President is uncle of Sri Girish Chandra, treasurer is uncle of Sri Subodh Kumar. Sri Ram Niwas Tyagi is a previous convict under S. 436, I.P.C and is not eligible to be a member of the committee of management in accordance with para 7(a) of the Scheme of Administration. It was also submitted before the D.D.E that the election held beyond three years one month was wholly void.

18. Sri Shashi Nandan submitted that the D.D.E was not the appellate Tribunal for examining the legality and correctness of the order passed by the D.I.O.S approving the election of the committee of management held on 29-4-1994.

19. Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent in Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994, submitted that in view of the decisions referred to in the earlier part of the judgment concerning the connected writ petition the election held beyond three years one month period was wholly illegal and without authority of the outgoing committee of management. Sri Ashok Bhushan submitted that under clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration the D.D.E was wholly competent to invoke a jurisdiction in such matter. He submitted that the election held beyond three years one month period was void. Sri Ashok Bhushan relied on a decision reported in 1988 (2) UPLBEC 1057, Committee of Management, Shri Gandhi Inter College v. D.D.E and referred to para 4 of the said judgment quoted as under:

“The power to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak depends upon the existence of conditions, namely, (i) if there is no election for constituting committee of management within one month from the date of the expiry of the term of the previous Committee of Management; and taking over charge by the newly elected committee of management within the same period. In fact, either of these two conditions is the condition precedent of exercise of power by the Regional Deputy Director of Education to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak for the institution. For that purpose, necessarily the Regional Deputy Director of Education has to make enquiry if the conditions aforesaid exist for exercise of power to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak, or not. But learned counsel for the petitioners argues that if election was held even after the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality or otherwise of the election. It is a settled law that when an authority is given power to do certain act on existence of certain circumstances, there is an implied power to make an enquiry as to whether those circumstances exist or not. The enquiry in regard to the existence of those circumstances is included in the grant of power. In other words, the power of making enquiry in regard to the existence of those circumstances flows as necessary means to accomplish the end. In fact, the enquiry is something essential for proper and effectual performance of duty assigned. The Regional Deputy Director of Education had to be satisfied as to whether any election had taken place within a period of one month from the date of the expiry of the term of the previous Committee of Management or not, and in case he finds that no election had taken place within the prescribed time, he is empowered to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak to hold election for constituting Committee of Management for the institution. In the enquiry if the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that election had taken place after the one month of the expiry of the term of the previous Committee of Management, he has necessarily to adjudicate upon the validity of the said election as under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration, no such election is permissible, and the power to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak is attracted. In the present case, the term of the previous Committee of Management expired on 18-6-1988. It was required that the election should be held within one month of the said date i.e by the 17th of July, 1988. The election of the petitioner Committee of Management was held on 14-8-1988 which was much after the time stipulated in clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration. Such an election cannot be said to be an election in the eye of law, the Regional Duputy Director of Education has rightly gone into the question of the validity of the election and correctly held that the said election was illegal. Under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration such an election shall be deemed to have been held by the person who was not authorised to do so, and no sanction or sanctity can be attached to that election under the law. In fact such an election has to be ignored, with the result that the only thing left for the Regional Deputy Director of Education is to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak who may get election held in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration. Since the election of the petitioner Committee of Management was illegal and void, the question of curtailment of its term does not arise as the proceedings of the said election were illegal being taken by persons who were not authorised to hold the election. In the present case, the Regional Deputy Director of Education was exercising power under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration and not under S. 16A(7) of the Act.”

20. The argument of Sri Shashi Nandan is negatived by the decisions reported in 1988 (2) UPLBEC 1057 (supra). I have no hesitation in holding that in view of the aforesaid judgment and also in view of the provisions of Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration the D.D.E was fully competent to exercise jurisdiction for arriving at a correct legal decision.

21. According to S. 19A read with S. 28 of the U.P General Clauses Act ancillary powers were there with the D.D.E The provisions of S. 19A of the U.P General Clauses Act are quoted as under:

“19A Where, by any Uttar Pradesh Act, a power is given to a person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers shall be deemed also to be given as are necessary to enable that person, officer or functionary to do or enforce the doing of the Act or thing.”

22. After considering the factual and legal position in the present writ petition I have no hesitation in holding that the D.D.E was fully competent and within the jurisdiction of authority to have power to appoint authorised controller to manage the affairs to hold the election of the committee of management in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgment and order impugned passed by the D.D.E is perfectly legal and just and calls for no interference. The Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1990 is liable to be dismissed.

23. The result is that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36777 of 1994 is allowed and the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34553 of 1994 is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

24. Order accordingly.

The Committee Of Man... v. The Deputy Director ...