IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2006 (MS) Adarsh Kanya Junior High School and another. ………….Petitioners. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. ………..Respondents. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1 to 4. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent no. 5. 31st March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This writ petition has been filed by the “Adarsh Kanya Junior High School”, through its Manager challenging the order dated 1.8.2006 passed by the District Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, by which the Election Officer was directed to make all those members of the Committee of Management, who had deposited the fee on or before 25th April, 2006 and to treat them as valid voters for the new election to the Committee of Management. 2. This order of the District Education Officer has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. The facts of the case are such that there is a school by the name of “Adarsh Kanya Junior High School” in Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is under the Management Committee. Since the Section of the School 2 is under the grant-in-aid, it is under the control of the Education Authorities. 4. It is an admitted case of the parties that the term of the elected Committee of Management was coming to an end on 30th June, 2006. As per the Scheme of Administration, the Committee of Management must initiate the process of election of the new Management Committee two months before the term of the management committee is coming to an end. 5. Therefore, under the law, the Management Committee was liable to initiate the process of election on or before 30th April, 2006. In this regard the Committee of Management gave an advertisement in a newspaper on 9th April, 2006 by which new members were invited, who were supposed to deposit their requisite document and fee between 10th April, 2006 to 25th April, 2006. In pursuant to that advertisement, 397 persons applied for membership. Out of 397 persons 226 persons were given membership and 155 persons although they had deposited the requisite fee but were not given membership because their membership application forms could not be deposited by 25th April, 2006. These 155 persons approached the District Education Officer and the District Education Officer vide its letter dated 29.4.2006 (contained as Annexure – 2 to Rejoinder Affidavit) directed the Manager of the School/petitioner that the case of the these 155 persons is genuine and their membership application forms must be collected by the Manager. In other words, these 155 persons, who though had deposited their fee but could not submit their membership application forms before the Management 3 Committee and had in turn submitted the same before the District Education Officer were held to be valid members. Instead of accepting the membership application forms of these 155 persons, the Management Committee in turn issued a fresh advertisement on 31st May, 2006 inviting fresh applications from all those who wanted to become members, who could not submit the membership application forms on or before 25th April, 2006. In pursuance to that advertisement not only those 155 persons who had approached the District Education Officer and had subsequently moved their applications for membership before the Management Committee became members, but according to the Management Committee, they were also free to include fresh members in pursuance of this fresh advertisement. Consequently therefore many such members also applied, who had neither deposited their fee on or before 25th April, 2006 nor submitted their membership application forms by that time. The District Education Officer in its letter dated 1st August, 2006 objected to those fresh members who were made members before 30th June, 2006 and stated that they will not be given voting rights and that order of the District Education Officer was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. On admission the following orders were passed by the learned Single Judge on 5.8.2006: “Heard Sri Dharamveer Sharma Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Thapliyal for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Agarwal Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Jitendra Chaudhary on behalf of intervener. He prays for and is granted one week time to file the counter affidavit, Standing counsel also 4 prays time for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder may be filed within 10 days thereafter. It has come on the record that the election has been stayed by the District Education Officer and as such no interim order can be granted at this stage. Put up for admission and disposal on 29.08.2006. Parties are directed to maintain status quo, in the meantime.” 6. Consequent to that the net effect of the interim order was that not only entire election process was stalled, but the Committee of Management whose term was coming to an end on 30th June, 2006 has managed to survive and worked as a Management Committee beyond its term of three years. The counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in this case. This court is of the considered view that before two months from the expiry of the Management Committee the election process must start which ipso facto means that in the electoral roll of the general body, the name of only those members shall be included who have become valid members prior to these two months (i.e. the date prior to two months when the term of the Management Committee is coming to an end). Since the term of the Management Committee was coming to an end on 30th June, 2006 only such members shall be considered as members who can validly exercise their power to vote, who have become members of the general body on or before 30th April, 2006. In this regard, the exercise undertaken by the Management Committee to make fresh members before 30.6.2006 pursuant to the advertisement dated 31st May, 2006 is not valid and members made pursuant it are not valid members having 5 capacity to exercise their votes. They may remain members but their name shall not be included in the voter list. Only such members will have the power to exercise their vote, who have become members on or before 25th April, 2006, in the present case, which will also include those 155 members, who though deposited their fee, but could not deposit their membership application forms on or before 25th April, 2006, but they could do so after approaching the District Education Officer. Therefore, the new members, who will have power to exercise the vote will be 226 plus 155 members, apart from that members who were already members of the general body. With these directions, the interim order dated 5.7.2006 is vacated. Since the term of the Management Committee has come to an end, the Director Education is hereby directed to immediately appoint an Authorised Controller within a period of fifteen days of receiving the certified copy of this order. The Authorised Controller shall supervise, direct and control the entire election without any further delay as soon as he is appointed as an Authorised Controller. 7. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 31.3.2009 Rathour