Allowed

C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College Thru. Manager and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2025WRIC/7013/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the DIOS's refusal to attest the newly elected Manager's signatures on grounds that no election occurred and no observer was appointed. The Court held both grounds unsustainable, noting the DIOS had no power to judge election validity while attesting signatures.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.06.2025 quashed; DIOS directed to attest the signatures of the elected Manager; objections to members' list to be decided on merits unaffected by this order.

C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College Thru. Manager… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47979

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7013 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College Thru. Manager And Another

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Verma

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Pratap Singh

¶8

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶9

Two affidavits have been filed today in the Court, which are taken on record.

¶10

The matter is being decided based upon the material on record and the affidavits filed today in the Court.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.06.2025, whereby the DIOS has refused to attest the signatures of the Manager, which was requested under the provisions of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1971').

¶13

The facts, in brief, are that the Society, namely, Ramkali Kanya Vidyalaya Samiti is a society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is managed under the provisions of the bye-laws of the year 2007. The said Society is an Inter College in terms of the scheme of administration dated 14.03.2012. It is stated that the registration of the Society was renewed on 04.01.2021 for a period of five years. It is also stated that on 18.09.2020, the elections of the Committee of Management were held, in which the petitioner No.2 was

¶14

elected and is working as the Manager of the Society. It is further stated that prior to the said date, the elections were held on 25.11.2018, in which one Smt. Rakhi Jaiswal was elected as Manager of the college and her signatures were duly attested on 07.12.2018. It is also stated that respondent No.2 passed an order appointing an authorized controller for a period of six months under Section 6(3) of the Act, 1971 and the Principal was appointed as an authorized controller. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed on 19.04.2023 and thereafter, a writ petition was also preferred being Writ-C No.3977 of 2023, wherein the writ petition was allowed and the appellate order was quashed. This Court had remanded the matter in its judgement dated 17.05.2023 and on remand, a fresh order came to be passed on 24.07.2023, wherein the case of the petitioner was rejected once again. It is stated that subsequently on 09.08.2023, the term of the authorized controller was extended for a further period of six months and the Associate DIOS was appointed as authorized controller. Against the order appointing authorized controller, Writ-C No.7663 of 2023 was preferred, which came to be allowed vide order dated 15.09.2023. It appears from the record that the Committee of Management of the college filed an application on 05.12.2023 for registration of the list of the members of the general body of the Society before the Deputy Registrar of the Societies and as the list was not approved, the Committee of Management was declared as time barred vide order dated 14.12.2023 and directions were issued for single operation till the formation of the new Committee of Management. It is further stated that, some complaints were filed under Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 by respondent No.4, for which Writ-C No.3660 of 2024 was also filed, which came to be partly allowed on 22.04.2024. In

¶15

compliance of the order passed by this Court on 22.04.2024, an order came to be passed on 12.12.2024, whereby the objections filed by respondent No.4 were rejected. It is claimed that the list of 58 members of the general body of the Society was published on 20.01.2025 in the newspaper 'Aaj' (Annexure No.9). The said list came to be registered on 20.03.2025 despite there being objections by respondent. The said list is contained in Annexure No.21 to the writ petition. In terms of the list that was finalized, steps were taken for holding the election for formation of the Committee of Management of the college. A request was also made to respondent No.2 for appointment of an observer, which was prescribed in terms of the scheme of the administration. It is stated that despite a letter being given, no further steps were taken for sending the observer and thus, an election was conducted on 06.04.2025 in the school premises in the presence of majority of the members of the general body. It is claimed that in the election held on 06.04.2025, Smt. Renu Jaiswal was elected as Manager of the college and the other office bearers were also elected. In terms of the said election, the documents were forwarded for attestation of the signatures of the newly elected Manager Smt. Renu Jaiswal as is required in terms of the Act, 1971. Before the said authority, respondent No.4 filed objections. It appears from the order impugned that has been passed that some report was called by the Principal, who had stated that no elections were held in the school and it was further recorded that the observer was not appointed, as such, an order came to be passed rejecting the request for attestation of the signatures of the Manager.

¶16

Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that while attesting the signatures in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, 1971, the DIOS has no authority to comment on the elections which were held on

¶17

06.04.2025. It is further argued that the report of the Principal, based upon which the impugned order has been passed, is wholly unwarranted as the Principal is prejudiced. With regard to there being no observer, reliance is placed upon a Government Order dated 02.09.2008 and its subsequent clarification on 27.10.2023 that in case, the observer is not appointed within seven days, the election can be held. In the light of the said arguments, it is argued that the writ petition is liable to allowed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, extensively argues that the entire election held by the petitioner was false, much emphasis was laid on the fact that the list of the members, which is shown to be published in the newspaper is a forged and fabricated documents as filed on Page No.140 of the paper book. It is further argued that even on the said list, it has been mentioned in the communication contained in Annexure No.21 (Page No.148) that although the list has been registered, in case it is found that it contained any false assertions, it can be declared as legally void. It is argued that respondent No.4 has filed detailed objections to the list of the members submitted and approved by the respondent, which are still pending adjudication. It is further argued that in terms of the scheme of administration, which is contained in the writ petition, the manners in which, the elections are to be held have been prescribed and the same have not been followed. It is further argued that once the authorized controller was appointed, the manner in which the election was held was wholly unjustified. The manners in which the elections are to be held are contained in para 11 of the scheme of the administration, to which my attention has been drawn to argue that the elections that have been held are not in consonance with the mandate of para 11. In the light of the said, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the order impugned has been passed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the report of the Principal, who had given a report that the elections were not held in the school premises. The said report was furnished by the Principal on 07.04.2025. An allegation has been levelled that the report of the Principal is prejudiced. The second foundation for passing the order is that no observer was appointed by the DIOS. The other allegation as raised by learned counsel for the respondent, cannot be seen at this stage for judicial review of the order impugned dated 16.06.2025, which has to be done based upon the material, based upon which the order impugned has been passed as has been settled in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others; AIR 1978 SC 851

¶20

On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that based upon the report of the Principal, a view has been formed that the election was not held, the same is wholly arbitrary inasmuch as for holding of the election, it was necessary and incumbent that the views of the members, who had participated in the elections had to be seen. Non sending of the observer, cannot be said to be fatal to the election in view of the Government Order of the year 2008.

¶21

Thus, on both the grounds, the order cannot be sustained. In addition to the said infirmities, the DIOS in exercise of powers of registration of the signatures prima facie has no powers to see the validity of the election, as appeared to have been done by means of the order impugned.

¶22

Thus for all the reasons recorded above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed .

¶23

The order dated 16.06.2025 is quashed. The DIOS is

¶24

directed to attest the signatures as requested by the petitioner associate.

¶25

It is further, however, clarified that the objections filed by the respondent with regard to the list furnished and said to be pending will be decided on their own merits without being influenced by the present order.

¶26

It is further clarified that this Court has not gone into the issue of publication of the list at this stage.

¶27

Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Ashutosh

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College Thru. Manager and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College Thru. Manager and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow Vs Prakash Singh S/O Sri Chamdra Bhal Singh.

Hotshot Developer Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sri Anmol Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Lko. and Anr.

C/M Chandika Shiksha Ashram Thru. President Namely Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Prasad and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Salik Ram vs Divisional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Jisan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.