In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has redefined the limits of the powers vested in the Regional Level Committee (RLC) in adjudicating school management disputes, stressing the need for strict adherence to legal provisions regarding the management and governance of educational institutions under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The case, โC/M Shri Shanker Inter College & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others,โ revolved around the validity of elections for the Committee of Management (CoM) of the college. Two opposing factions, led by petitioner Devendra Singh and respondent Jagdish Prasad Jain, had each conducted separate elections in April 2003, both claiming legitimacy.
The petitionerโs election, held on April 9, 2003, was initially recognized by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.), while the respondentโs election, held on April 3, 2003, was rejected. The Regional Level Committee initially affirmed the petitionerโs election, but this decision was contested in various legal forums, leading to a series of judgments and remands over the years.
The key legal issue was the determination of the valid electoral list of the general body members of the society managing the college, which was crucial for conducting lawful elections.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Saumitra Anand, successfully argued that the RLC had exceeded its jurisdiction by favouring the respondents without a proper legal basis. Advocate Prabhakar Awasthi, representing the respondents, contended that the RLCโs decision was justified, but the Courtโs ruling ultimately favoured the petitioners, mandating a stricter adherence to legal norms by the RLC.
The Single Bench presided over by Justice Salil Kumar Rai, ruled that the determination of the electoral college by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as directed in a previous writ petition (Writ-C No. 21161 of 2012), was lawful, while also acknowledging that the respondentโs civil suit challenging this determination had been dismissed for want of prosecution and no appeal for its restoration had been filed.
The Deputy District Magistrateโs order in 2013, which favoured the petitionerโs list of 67 members over the respondent’s list of 126 members, was also contested but ultimately upheld by the court, thus, affirming the legitimacy of the petitionerโs management and also dismissing the respondentโs longstanding claims.
The judgment underscored that while the RLC plays a pivotal role in ensuring that school management elections adhere to the law, its authority is not without limits. The Court held that the RLC is not empowered to act beyond the confines of the statutory provisions and the specific Scheme of Administration governing each institution. The RLCโs role is primarily administrative, and it must act within the parameters set by the institutionโs governing rules. Any deviation from these rules, or any arbitrary recognition of one management faction over another, is not permissible under the law.
Also Read
The judgment reaffirmed that decisions of the RLC are not final and can be challenged in court, ensuring a check on the RLCโs power. This provision is crucial for maintaining the balance of power and preventing any misuse or overreach by the RLC. The Court clarified that the RLCโs powers are administrative and procedural rather than adjudicatory, which should guide its approach in resolving such disputes.
