IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 82 of 2011 Committee of Management, B.D. Inter College, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar through its Manager, Satya Kumar Tyagi S/o Chaudhary Mehar Chand. ………….. Appellant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, School Education, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Director, Uttarakhand School Education, Nanoorkhera, Dehradun. 3. Additional Director, School Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri. 4. District Education Officer, Haridwar. 5. Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Date: 4th May, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Admit. 2. With consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 4. Appointment of authorized controller over the institution led to filing of a writ petition which has been dismissed 2 by the judgment under appeal and hence the erstwhile Committee of Management is before us in this appeal. 5. The contention of the Committee of Management is that it still had six months’ time to hold election and, accordingly, until expiry of six more months the Director could not appoint authorized controller. It was contended that the election was held on 12th March, 2008 and the District Education Officer approved the election on 29th August, 2008, whereupon the said elected Committee of Management started functioning. It is contended that the term of the said Committee of Management would expire not before 28th August, 2011 and, accordingly, before 28th August, 2011 the Director could not hold that the term of the Committee of Management has come to an end and, accordingly, authorized controller is required to be appointed. It was next contended that the institution is managed by a registered society and, accordingly, the provisions contained in the Societies Registration Act would apply. 6. These contentions have been rejected by the judgment and order under appeal on the ground that the scheme of administration adopted by the institution makes it abundantly clear that the term of the Committee of Management is three years, and that, the said term does not start from the date of approval of the election by the District Education Officer, inasmuch as, the scheme does not speak about the same. The judgment under appeal has also rejected the contention that Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 deals with the subject on the ground that the same applies when there is a dispute inter se the members of the society and since in the instant case there is no dispute inter se the members of the society, the provisions contained in Section 25 of the said Act have no application. 7. We have not been persuaded to take a different opinion as has been expressed by the learned Judge while rendering the 3 judgment and order under appeal. We are also of the view that the term of the Committee of Management starts the moment they are duly elected. Inasmuch as, the scheme, in the instant case, does not require the election of the Committee of Management to be vetted by an officer of the government, the Committee of Management, on being elected, is entitled to function and if they do not function, that is their failure to function. On the basis of failure to function, the Committee of Management of the institute in question could not enlarge their term. We are also of the view that Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act deals with the manner of redressal of disputes inter se members of the society and not inter se the society and a third person and, accordingly, Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act had no role to play in relation to the action on the part of the Director complained of in the writ petition. 8. In the appeal, the appellant is contending that the appointment of authorized controller is contrary to Sub Section (4) of Section 34 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006. We are of the view that the said Sub Section has no application in the instant case, inasmuch as, the power under the said Sub Section can be used in the circumstances mentioned in Sub Section (3) of Section 34 of the said Act. Sub Section (3) of Section 34 of the said Act does not deal with a situation, where the Committee of Management has failed to constitute a freshly elected Committee of Management during their tenure. The learned counsel for the appellant in the circumstances drew our attention to Clause (8) of the Scheme of Administration of the institution, where it has been provided that after completion of three years, the tenure of Committee will automatically end and the new Committee of Management will assume charge, and that, otherwise one person nominated as managing conductor by the Divisional/Additional Education Director will be deemed to be working, who will have full right of the Committee of Management, and that, the managing conductor will have the newly elected committee working at the 4 earliest by conducting election. From Clause (8) of the said Scheme, it is clear that what has been done in the instant case has been done exactly in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. 9. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere in the matter and dismiss the appeal with the observation that authorised controller /managing conductor of the institution shall endeavour to hold election as quickly as possible in terms of the Scheme of Administration. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 04.05.2011 P. Singh