The Allahabad High Court has a petition saying that the District Inspector of Schools does not have the right to withdraw the manager’s signature verification order on financial mismanagement and the District Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.
A Single Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai passed this order while hearing a petition filed by C/M Maharshi Shivbrat Lal Intermediate College.
The facts of the case are that elections to elect the Committee of Management and its office-bearers of the Institution named as Maharshi Shivbrat Lal Intermediate College, Radha Swami Dham, District Bhadohi was held on 19.4.2020 in which Smt Ramlali Mishra was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management.
The necessary documents were submitted before the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadohi for attesting the signatures of the elected Manager and the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadohi vide his order dated 21.4.2020 attested the signatures of Smt Ramlali Mishra.
It appears that subsequently some complaint regarding the financial management of the Institution and treatment of the employees as well as that the members of the Committee of Management were relatives was filed by the caveator Sri Krishna Mohan Tiwari.
On the aforesaid complaint, the District Magistrate constituted an inquiry committee headed by the Chief Development Officer, Bhadohi to inquire into the complaint made by the caveator.
The inquiry committee submitted a report noting that the members of the Committee of Management of the Institution were relatives. Considering the aforesaid report, the District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 27.8.2022 has recalled his previous order dated 21.4.2020 attesting the signatures of Smt Ramlali Mishra as Manager.
The order dated 27.8.2022 has been challenged in the writ petition.
The Court observed that,
Any decision by the District Inspector of Schools to attest the signatures of the elected Manager of the Committee of Management of any institution governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is dependent on the decision regarding the validity of the elections.
It is a recognition by the Education Authorities that the concerned person was prima facie validly elected as Manager. Any subsequent financial mismanagement by the Committee of Management cannot be a ground for the District Inspector of Schools to withdraw his previous order attesting the signatures of the Manager.
Further, the validity of the elections and the validity of the constitution of the Committee of Management are to be decided by the District Inspector of Schools himself and not on an inquiry submitted by any Body constituted by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate has no jurisdiction in the aforesaid matter.
“A reading of the order dated 27.8.2022 passed by the District Inspector of Schools shows that in his aforesaid order, the District Inspector of Schools has mechanically accepted the findings of the inquiry submitted by the Inquiry Committee constituted by the District Magistrate. The order of the District Magistrate constituting the Inquiry Committee was without jurisdiction.
A reading of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools also shows that no details have been given in the same as to how the members of the Committee of Management were related to each other. For the aforesaid reason, the order of the District Inspector of Schools is a non speaking order.
Apart from the aforesaid, the reasons given in the order are extraneous to the powers of the District Inspector of Schools regarding attestation of the signatures of the Manager of the Committee of Management of any institution governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921″, the Court further observed while allowing the petition.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 27.8.2022 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is contrary to law and is, hereby, quashed by the High Court.