Case: Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School &amp; Another Vs. Mohinder Kaur &amp; Another

dated July 1,1979 ?9. Sec. 2 of the Societies Registration Act prescribed that a society will have a memorandum of association which will contain the name of the society, the objects of the society and the names and addresses and occupa­tion of the governors, their council, directors, committee or the governing body to whom by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted. The said section also provides that in addition to memorandum of association, there would be rules and regulations of society which are also required to be filed with the memorandum of association for the purpose of registration of the society under Section of the said Act. As regards alteration of the memorandum of association provision is made in Section 12 which prescribes the procedure for altering, extending or abridging the purpose or purposes for which the society has been established. By Delhi Act 9 of 1954, certain amendments have been made in the Societies Registration Act as applicable in the Union Territory of Delhi and as a result Section 12-A has been inserted to make provision for registration of change of name etc. It reads as under: “12-A, Registration of change of name—(1) Where a proposition for change of name has been agreed to and confirmed in the manner prescribed by Section 12, a copy of the proposition so agreed to and confirmed shall be forwarded to the Registrar for registering the change of name. If the proposed name is identical with that by which any other existing society has been registered, or in the opinion of the Registrar so nearly resembles such name as to be likely to deceive the public or the members of either society, the Registrar shall refuse to register the change of name.(2) Save as provided in Sub-section (1), the Registrar shall, if he is satisfied that the provisions of this Act in respect of change of name have been complied with, register the change of name and issue a certificate of registration altered to meet the circumstances of the case. On the issue of such a certificate the change of name shall be complete.(3) The Registrar shall charge for any copy of a certificate issued under Sub-section (2) a fee of rupee one or such larger fee not exceeding rupees five as the State Government may, from time-to-time, direct; and all fees so paid shall form part of the Consolidated Fund of India.” 10. Apart from the requirement contained in Section 12A for registration of the change of name of a Society with the Registrar, there is no requirement in the Societies Registration Act which requires registration of any amendment in the memorandum of association or the rules and regulations of a society to be registered with the Registrar. Even in the Companies Act, 1956 a distinction is made in the matter of alteration of the memorandum of association and alteration of the articles of association. Under Section 18 of the Companies Act, it is necessary that the alteration of memorandum of association be registered with the Registrar of Companies within the prescribed period and the alteration takes effect from the date of its registration and under Section 19(1), it is provided that the alteration shall have effect only it has been duly registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 18. There is no such requirement with regard to registration of the alteration in the articles of association of the company. Here we are concerned with the amendment in the rules and regulations of the Society. In the absence of any requirement in the Societies Registration Act that the alteration in the rules and regulations must be registered with the Registrar, it cannot be held that registration of the amendment is a condition precedent for such an alteration to come into effect. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Mehta that the amendment which was made in the rules and regulations by resolution dated July 1, 1979 did not come into effect till March 13, 1980 when the amended rules and regulations were registered with the Registrar, Firms and Societies. The said amendment should be treated to have come into effect from the date on which the resolution making the said amend­ment was passed,i.e., July 1, 1979. As a result of the said amendment in the rules and regulations of the Society, the alterations made in the Rules and Regulations in 1963 were reversed and the position as it stood prior to the amendment of 1963 was restored. Consequently, the School which was a minority institution till the amendment of the Rules and Regulations in 1963 and had ceased to be a minority institution as a result of the amendment in 1963 regained its status as a minority institution after July 1, 1979, when the rules and regulations were amended and the original position was restored. In view of the restoration of the minority character of the institution the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules ceased to be applicable to the institution after July 1, 1979. The impugned order for termination of the services of the respondent was passed on December 31, 1979, i.e., after the School had become a minority institu­tion. The said order cannot, therefore, be held to be invalid on the ground that it was passed in contravention of Section 8 of the Education Act. The order passed by the Delhi High Court quashing the said order as well as the Disciplinary proceedings cannot, therefore, be upheld. The respondent was placed under suspension on August 11, 1972 and continued under suspension till April 9, 1973 on which date Education Act came into force. In other words she was under suspension at a time when the Education Act was not in force. The order of suspension cannot be judged on the basis of the Education Act and the Education Rules. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the direction of the High Court quashing her order of suspension.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. We do not find merit in the first contention urged by Mr. Tarkunde. The object of the amendments that were introduced in the rules and regulations of the Society in 1963 was to change the minority status of the institution so that it could be allotted land by the Delhi Development Authority. The Society also proceeded on the basis that it had ceased to be a minority institution after 1963 because after the enactment of the Education Act in 1973 the Society functioned as ainstitution and was complying with the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules. It is the case of the appellants that the disciplinary proceedings that were continued against the respondent were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules and the Disciplinary Committee was constituted fromin accordance with the said provisions as per the directions of the Education Department of the Delhi Administration. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the school had not ceased to be a minority institution as a result of the amendment of the rules and regulations of the Society in 1963.8. As regards the second submission of Mr. Tarkunde with regard to restoration of the minority status of the institution after the amendment of the rules and regulations of the Society by resolution dated July 1, 1979, the submission of Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for theis that the rules and regulations as amended by the resolution dated July 1, 1979 were registered with the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Delhi on March 13. 1980 and, therefore, the amended rules and regulations came into effect only on the date of such registration and the said amended rules were not in force on December 31, 1979, the date of passing of the impugned order of removal of the respondent and on December 31, 1979, the school was ainstitution governed by the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules. In view of the said submission, the question which needs to be considered is, what is the date of the coming into force of the rules and regulations, which were amended by resolution dated July 1,1979 ?9. Sec. 2 of the Societies Registration Act prescribed that a society will have a memorandum of association which will contain the name of the society, the objects of the society and the names and addresses andof the governors, their council, directors, committee or the governing body to whom by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted. The said section also provides that in addition to memorandum of association, there would be rules and regulations of society which are also required to be filed with the memorandum of association for the purpose of registration of the society under Section of the said Act. As regards alteration of the memorandum of association provision is made in Section 12 which prescribes the procedure for altering, extending or abridging the purpose or purposes for which the society has been established. By Delhi Act 9 of 1954, certain amendments have been made in the Societies Registration Act as applicable in the Union Territory of Delhi and as a result Sectionhas been inserted to make provision for registration of change of nameApart from the requirement contained in Section 12A for registration of the change of name of a Society with the Registrar, there is no requirement in the Societies Registration Act which requires registration of any amendment in the memorandum of association or the rules and regulations of a society to be registered with the Registrar. Even in the Companies Act, 1956 a distinction is made in the matter of alteration of the memorandum of association and alteration of the articles of association. Under Section 18 of the Companies Act, it is necessary that the alteration of memorandum of association be registered with the Registrar of Companies within the prescribed period and the alteration takes effect from the date of its registration and under Section 19(1), it is provided that the alteration shall have effect only it has been duly registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 18. There is no such requirement with regard to registration of the alteration in the articles of association of the company. Here we are concerned with the amendment in the rules and regulations of the Society. In the absence of any requirement in the Societies Registration Act that the alteration in the rules and regulations must be registered with the Registrar, it cannot be held that registration of the amendment is a condition precedent for such an alteration to come into effect. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Mehta that the amendment which was made in the rules and regulations by resolution dated July 1, 1979 did not come into effect till March 13, 1980 when the amended rules and regulations were registered with the Registrar, Firms and Societies. The said amendment should be treated to have come into effect from the date on which the resolution making the saidwas passed,i.e., July 1, 1979. As a result of the said amendment in the rules and regulations of the Society, the alterations made in the Rules and Regulations in 1963 were reversed and the position as it stood prior to the amendment of 1963 was restored. Consequently, the School which was a minority institution till the amendment of the Rules and Regulations in 1963 and had ceased to be a minority institution as a result of the amendment in 1963 regained its status as a minority institution after July 1, 1979, when the rules and regulations were amended and the original position was restored. In view of the restoration of the minority character of the institution the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules ceased to be applicable to the institution after July 1, 1979. The impugned order for termination of the services of the respondent was passed on December 31, 1979, i.e., after the School had become a minorityThe said order cannot, therefore, be held to be invalid on the ground that it was passed in contravention of Section 8 of the Education Act. The order passed by the Delhi High Court quashing the said order as well as the Disciplinary proceedings cannot, therefore, be upheld. The respondent was placed under suspension on August 11, 1972 and continued under suspension till April 9, 1973 on which date Education Act came into force. In other words she was under suspension at a time when the Education Act was not in force. The order of suspension cannot be judged on the basis of the Education Act and the Education Rules. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the direction of the High Court quashing her order of suspension.