Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 provides that the management shall not, except with the prior approval of the Board, dismiss any teacher or remove him from service, or serve on him any notice of removal from service, or reduce him in rank or reduce his emoluments or withhold his increment for any period whether temporarily or permanently and any such thing done without such prior approval shall be void.
Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982, has also been similarly interpreted by the Court in Hem Lata Agrawal v. District Inspector of Schools, 2003 (2) AWC 939. It was held as under: “The question whether the reversion of a teacher, who was appointed on temporary adhoc basis as Principal under Section 18 of the Act would amount to reduction in rank so as to require approval of the Board need not be considered here as whether or not it is a reduction in rank, it is clear that it amounts to reduction of emoluments. The petitioner is entitled to the salary for the post of Principal and reverting her, as a Lecturer would undoubtedly affect the emoluments to which she is entitled. The language of Section 21 of the Act is wide enough to cover within its scope the order impugned in this writ petition.”…. Kapil Deo Prasad V. Joint Director of Education 7th Region Gorakhpur, Writ – A No. – 442 of 2020, decided on 05.03.2020
Since salary to teaching and non-teaching staff has to be disbursed pursuant to bills presented under the signatures of the manager and he also signs on the cheque, it is imperative that the Inspector authorises only such representative of the management which is constituted in accordance with the scheme of management. In addition to the functions assigned to a management in the U.P. High Schools And Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers And Other Employees) Act, of 1971, there are other responsibilities entrusted upon the management by virtue of provisions contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The U.P. Intermediate Education Act of 1921, therefore, contemplates that a scheme of administration shall exist for every institution recognized under the Act of 1921. The scheme of administration shall, amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a committee of management which is vested with the authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the Institution. The requirement of having such scheme of administration and also the particulars which it must contain are specified in Section 16-A of the Act of 1921. Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A mandates that every recognized institution shall be managed in accordance with the scheme of administration provided for in Sub-sections (1) to (6) thereof. Amendment has been made in the Act of 1921 to incorporate Section 16-CC and Section 16-CCC vide U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981. Third Schedule has also been added vide the same amending Act laying down principles on which approval to a scheme of administration shall be accorded. One of the factors specified in the Schedule is to provide for periodical elections. The scheme of administration is also required to be approved by the Deputy Director of Education.
The object of enumerating need to have a scheme of administration and for a committee of management to be constituted as per it is to ensure that the body entrusted with the task of management functions in a democratic manner and the officials of the State interact only with a body duly elected in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. It is in this context that the term recognition needs to be understood for the committee of management of the Institution concerned. There is otherwise no specific provision in the Act of 1921 for grant of recognition. Committee of Management Thakur Biri Singh Inter College v. State of U.P. , Writ – C No. – 28560 of 2019, decided on 25.02. 2020
An order of suspension of the Head or a Teacher, as the case may be, would become inoperative after lapse of sixty days but would continue to exist though inoperative but would become effective immediately on approval of District Inspector of Schools. In the event of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the suspension, the order would become non est and would not exist in the eye of law unless the order of disapproval is set aside by the competent court/authority. The District Inspector of Schools while exercising power under sub-section (7) of Section 16 G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act acts in a supervisory capacity. He has to record brief reason to accord approval or disapproval to any order of suspension passed by the Management. The District Inspector of Schools has to examine the papers so transmitted but would have no right to address on the merit of the charges, but has only to see on, prima facie basis, as to whether, charges have any substance. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal/Teacher. Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College v. State of U.P., 2018 (5) AWC 4767.
In A.P. Aboobaker Musaliar v. District. Registrar, (2004) 11 SCC 247 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted the Division Bench judgment of the High Court, in which it was held as under:
“Thus, in the case of a dispute when more than one return is filed, the Registrar has got the power to find out as to which one he should accept. There may not be an elaborate enquiry. Prima facie he has to satisfy as to which return is to be accepted. In this case, we find that the list given by the appellant was accepted, because it had the support of court orders and also it was being followed for a large number of years. No doubt, such an enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken from it does not become final. The party can take up the matter before a competent court as to who are the members of the governing body.” It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Division Bench had rightly decided the issue as to whether the Registrar had power under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act to take a decision with regard to the annual list submitted by the Committee of Management of the Society. Moreover, the enquiry made by the Registrar and the decision taken did not become final and the party could take up the matter before the competent court as to who were the valid members of the Governing Body. Madarsa Arabiya Ahle Sunnat Nurul Ullom v. State of U.P., 2020 (138) ALR 44.
In Shyamdeo Prasad Singh v. Naval Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 as well as various other Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court the principle of law restraining the courts from interfering in the process of election after the elections are notified is equally applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the committee of management of the societies as well as the Committee of Management to be elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration of the educational institutions. The principles of law that the courts should keep their hand off in electoral matters and that all election disputes must be tries by the Election Tribunal, is also incorporated in the Constitution of India under Article 329 (b) of the elections of the Parliament or to the house or either house of the legislature, under Article 243 O for the elections of Panchayats and Article 243 ZG in the matter of elections of the municipalities. There is no reason as to why these time tested and settled principles should not be made applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the societies and for the Committee of Management under the scheme of administration of the educational institutions.
In West Bengal State Election Commission v. Communist Party of India (Marxist), AIR 2018 SC 3964, it was held as under:
“Thirdly, once the election process has commenced, it is trite law that it should not be interdicted mid stage. The electoral process is afforded sanctity in a democracy. That is the reason why in a consistent line of precedent, this court has insisted upon the discipline of the law being followed so that any challenge to the validity of an election has to be addressed by adopting the remedy of an election petition under the governing statute.” Kamlapati Singh v. State of U.P., (2019) 3 UPLBEC 1759.
In Committee of Management v. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, 2017 (1) ADJ 1, it was held as under:
“As would be evident from a reading of sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, the power and jurisdiction of any other authority or person to call a meeting for the purpose of election stands eclipsed only in a situation where a meeting has already been called by the Registrar under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. In fact sub-section (3) recognizes that a meeting for the purposes of elections may in fact be convened by any other authority or by any other person. The power of that other authority or person to convene such a meeting stands taken away only if the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and steps under sub-section (2) to convene a meeting.” Banwari Lal Kanchal v. Dr. Bhartendu Agarwal, 2020 (1) ESC 1.
Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Societies Registration Act comes into play when an allegation is made that a body, claiming office bearers of a society, by misrepresenting facts or practicing fraud, has obtained the registration of a society or its renewal. If such allegation is made, the Registrar necessarily has to go into the question of validity of the constitution of a society applied for renewal of certificate of registration. Entitlement of the office bearers of a society who apply for renewal of certificate of registration depends upon their valid constitution. Otherwise any fake body claiming office bearers of a society by misrepresenting facts may get renewal of certificate of registration of society in its name. Thus, it is open to the Registrar to go incidentally to the question of validity of constitution of society, which has been granted renewal of certificate of registration, if any objection is raised that the office bearers who had applied for and has been granted renewal of certificate of registration is fake body and has obtained renewal by misrepresenting facts or by practicing fraud. However, in such proceeding an enquiry is limited to this extent, firstly, that office bearers who applied for and has been granted renewal of certificate of registration of society is legally entitled to it or not and secondly, whether the body who applied for, has obtained renewal of certificate of registration by misrepresentation or by practicing fraud or not. If in this proceeding it is found that the body, who applied for and has been granted renewal of certificate of registration is not legally entitled to it and further it has obtained by misrepresenting facts or by practicing fraud, it is open to the Registrar to cancel the renewal of certificate of registration granted in favour of such a body. Rajesh Mishra v. Commissioner, (2019) 2 UPLBEC 984.