The High Court dismissed a writ petition by a rival claimant challenging the attestation of signatures of the incumbent Committee of Management. The Court held that pending litigation without a stay does not negate de jure and de facto control, and recruitment drives should not be hampered by internal disputes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25694 of 2018
Petitioner :- Bhrigu Nath Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Sharma,Alok Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
In compliance of the order of this Court dated 06.12.2018, Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter to be referred as 'DBEO') has obtained instructions and placed the same before this Court today. The instructions brought today is taken on record.
It is clearly borne out from the instructions that there is an order on 27.03.2017 passed by DBEO wherein he has attested the signatures of 5th respondent and has also observed that the order of the Assistant Registrar, Societies for the 5th respondent is sub judice in Writ - A No. 5408 of 2016 and the attestation has also been subjected to the final outcome of the writ petition. The instructions also contained a letter of Assistant Registrar, Societies dated 25.09.2018, whereby, the list of officer bearers of the Society submitted at the instance of 5th respondent has also been registered.
On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner about the instruction, he states that he has already challenged the order of attestation of signature dated 27.03.2017 vide Writ - A No. 37148 of 2017 which is pending but there is no interim order operating therein. About the order dated 25.09.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not aware about this order.
From the above facts it clearly transpires that 5th respondent is in effective control of the Institution as valid Committee of Management as on today and his signatures also stand attested as on today. The law is very clear that a mere pendency of appeal or writ petition will not wipe off the effect of a legal status. Even otherwise, I find that once the signatures of 5th respondent has been attested and
there is no stay order, he is not only the de facto Manager of the Institution but de jure as well and therefore, for all legal and practical purposes for the administration of the Institution, he can take such decision as permissible in law. The Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 that provide for selection and appointment on the post of Head Master and Assistant Teachers carry a mandate that the Institutions shall have a requisite number of teachers as per the norms and prescribed procedure for that, involving the Committee of Management in the process of selection and appointment.
Under the circumstances, I see no justification to maintain the present writ petition at the instance of a third party, may be he is a rival claimant, but as far as the process of selection is concerned in the Institution, the present Committee of Management which is in effective control, can go ahead. This Court may notice that the rival dispute cannot be permitted to hamper in any manner the academic activities in the Institution, particularly governing the field of elementary education. The directive principles the State policy do provide for a constitutional mandate for the State to provide free and compulsory education and at least at the elementary education level where the children have to be taught properly so that they render full assistance in nation building. Institutions cannot be permitted to be devoid of proper strength of teaching staff just for internal management disputes pending before the courts, whoever is in effective control and whose Committee of Management has been recognized for the moment, is entitled to carry out such exercise of recruitment as permissible in law.
In view of the above, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 17.12.2018 IrfanUddin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition by a rival claimant can maintain while the Committee of Management is effectively in charge and there is no stay order?
Whether internal management disputes in an educational institution can hamper academic activities and recruitment processes?
Bhrigu Nath Yadav
State Of U.P.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
