Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra (2015)

Introduction

The Bombay High Court in Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra considered whether the members of an earlier managing body of a public trust could continue to exercise authority merely because the change report filed by the newly elected body was pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

The dispute arose in connection with the management of Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti, Manatha, District Nanded, and particularly in relation to the appointment and approval of the Headmaster of the school run by the Samiti.

The Court held that the newly elected representatives could not be prohibited from functioning merely because their change report had not yet been accepted. The pendency of the change report did not authorize the old body to continue to function.

Background of the Case

Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti, Manatha, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded, was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as well as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Samiti was registered as Public Trust No. F-90 (Nanded) and was running a school known as Adarsh Vidyalaya at Manatha.

The elections to the Executive Committee of the Samiti were held on 1 May 2013. In those elections, a new Executive Committee consisting of eleven members was constituted. Marotrao Nagorao Shinde was elected as President and Sandeep Marotrao Shinde as General Secretary. Respondent No. 6, Subhashram Ghanshyam Tarte, had been the General Secretary of the Executive Committee during the earlier term.

After the elections, the newly elected President filed a change report on 18 June 2013 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded, under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The change report was registered as Enquiry No. 578/2013 and remained pending.

Dispute Regarding Appointment of Headmaster

In April 2014, the post of Headmaster of Adarsh Vidyalaya became vacant upon the retirement of the existing Headmaster, Shri Wagh. The newly elected Executive Committee decided to appoint Shri S.M. Manatkar as In-charge Headmaster and forwarded a proposal to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, seeking approval.

On 30 June 2014, the Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of Shri S.M. Manatkar as In-charge Headmaster and directed the management to take immediate steps for appointment of a regular Headmaster.

Thereafter, on 13 August 2014, respondent No. 6, claiming to act as General Secretary of the Trust, submitted a representation to the Education Officer requesting cancellation of the appointment of Shri Manatkar as In-charge Headmaster.

Acting upon that representation, the Education Officer, by an order dated 20 August 2014, cancelled the approval previously granted to Shri Manatkar.

Earlier Proceedings Before the High Court

The newly elected President thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 8299 of 2014 challenging the cancellation of the approval granted to Shri Manatkar. The matter was considered along with Writ Petition No. 8077 of 2014.

On 29 September 2014, the High Court disposed of those petitions on the basis of a statement made on behalf of the petitioners that if Shri Kondba Namdeorao Sandve approached the newly elected Executive Committee for his appointment as Headmaster, the Executive Committee would take a decision regarding his appointment.

According to the petitioners, Shri Sandve did not give his written consent for such appointment. Nevertheless, the newly elected Executive Committee decided to appoint him as Headmaster and issued an appointment order dated 7 October 2014. Shri Sandve, however, refused to accept that appointment order.

The record also referred to a letter dated 13 October 2014 addressed by Shri Sandve to petitioner No. 1, in which he stated that the Management had already appointed him as Headmaster by an order dated 1 August 2014. This statement appears alongside the subsequent appointment order dated 7 October 2014 referred to by the petitioners. The judgment records both facts but does not expressly resolve this apparent inconsistency.

Respondent No. 6, again claiming to act as General Secretary of the Trust, submitted a proposal dated 10 October 2014 to the Education Officer seeking approval to the appointment of Shri Sandve as Headmaster.

Approval Granted by the Education Officer

The newly elected President made a representation to the Education Officer on 17 October 2014, requesting that no order be passed on the basis of any proposal submitted by respondent No. 6 on behalf of the Samiti.

Despite this objection, the Education Officer, by order dated 12 November 2014, granted approval to the appointment of Shri Kondba Namdeorao Sandve as Headmaster on the basis of the proposal submitted by respondent No. 6.

The newly elected management therefore approached the Bombay High Court by filing the present writ petition.

Reliefs Sought Before the High Court

The petitioners sought quashing of the Education Officer’s order dated 12 November 2014 granting approval to the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Headmaster on the basis of the proposal submitted by respondent No. 6.

They further sought directions restraining the concerned authorities from accepting or considering correspondence, communications or proposals submitted by respondent No. 6 on behalf of Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti.

The petitioners also sought a declaration that the Executive Committee elected on 1 May 2013 was legally entitled to administer, control and manage the day-to-day affairs of the Samiti.

Issue Before the Court

The principal question before the High Court was whether the earlier managing body could continue to function and exercise authority over the affairs of the Trust merely because the change report filed by the newly elected representatives was pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

Submissions of the Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that after the elections held on 1 May 2013, the newly elected President had filed the change report under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and that the President and General Secretary of the newly elected body were entitled to function on behalf of the Trust.

They relied upon the earlier Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 6073 of 2005, decided on 22 September 2005.

On the basis of that decision, it was contended that newly elected representatives could not be prohibited from functioning merely because the change report was pending and that the old body could not continue to function solely on account of such pendency.

Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

On behalf of respondent No. 5, it was pointed out that the petitioners themselves had also recommended respondent No. 5 for appointment and approval as Headmaster. It was therefore contended that the Education Officer’s order granting approval to his appointment did not require interference.

Analysis and Findings of the Court

After considering the submissions of the parties and examining the record, the Division Bench held that the newly elected representatives were entitled to function and look after the affairs of Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti.

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others. In that case, the Division Bench had considered whether the pendency of a change report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner enabled an old managing body to continue to function even after newly elected representatives had assumed charge.

The Court reiterated the principle that submission of a change report is a formality and that, until the competent authority passes an order rejecting the change report, the newly elected representatives cannot be prohibited from functioning.

The mere pendency of the change report does not result in continuation of the old body, nor can the old body be permitted to continue functioning merely because the change report awaits consideration by the competent authority.

Application of the Principle to the Present Case

Applying the above principle, the High Court held that once the newly elected representatives had submitted the change report, respondent No. 6 had no authority either to appoint respondent No. 5 as Headmaster or to recommend his appointment for approval.

Since respondent No. 6 lacked such authority, the Education Officer could not have acted upon his recommendation for granting approval to the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Headmaster.

The authority to act in matters concerning the management of the Samiti belonged to the newly elected representatives and not to respondent No. 6 merely because the change report remained pending.

Court’s Finding Regarding the Headmaster

The Court noted that it was not disputed that Shri Kondba Namdeorao Sandve was the senior-most teacher. Significantly, the newly elected representatives themselves had also appointed him as Headmaster and had forwarded his proposal to the Education Officer.

The Court therefore held that the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Headmaster and the approval of his services could be sustained only on the basis of the appointment and recommendation made by the newly elected representatives.

Accordingly, the appointment or recommendation made by respondent No. 6 was held to be per se illegal and unsustainable in law. Thus, the Court’s objection was to the authority of respondent No. 6 to make the appointment or recommendation, rather than to the eligibility of respondent No. 5 to hold the post of Headmaster.

Ratio Decidendi

Final Order

The High Court held that respondent No. 6 had no right or authority to forward the proposal of respondent No. 5 for approval as Headmaster. Such a proposal could have been submitted only by the newly elected representatives.

The Court further directed that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were required to act only at the instance of the elected representatives in respect of the affairs of Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti, Manatha, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded.

The Rule was made absolute in those terms and the writ petition was allowed to that extent and disposed of.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court held that the pendency of a change report does not authorize the previous managing body to continue functioning after newly elected representatives have assumed charge and submitted the change report. The newly elected representatives are entitled to manage the affairs of the Trust unless the competent authority rejects the change report. Consequently, respondent No. 6 had no authority to make or recommend the appointment of the Headmaster on behalf of the Samiti, and the concerned authorities were required to act at the instance of the newly elected representatives.

Case Details

Court: Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad

Bench: S.S. Shinde & P.R. Bora, JJ.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11297 of 2014

Reserved on: 25-03-2015

Pronounced on: 08-04-2015

Petitioners: Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti & Others

Respondents: State of Maharashtra & Others

Judgment: Per S.S. Shinde, J.

About the Author

TheLegalLearners Team

For educational and informational purposes only.