COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, S.M. COLLEGE CHANDAUSI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   WRIT - C No. - 12337 of 2026

Committee of Management, S.M. College Chandausi and another
                                             …..Petitioner(s)

                              Versus

State of U.P. and 3 others
                                                  …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Manish Tiwari, Saurabh Tripathi,
                                    Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C., Girish Kumar Yadav,
                                    Prashant Mathur


                                             Reserved on 29.4.2026
                                             Delivered on 6.5.2026

Court No. - 32

           HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.



1. The Committee of Management S.M. College Chandausi,
District Sambhal is before this Court by way of filing present writ
petition through its Secretary.


2. It is on record that Committee of Management has already
approached this Court earlier by way of filing various writ petitions
which were disposed of by different Single Bench of this Court
and some of the orders are under challenge before the Division
Bench of this Court. Therefore, for proper consideration of present
case, Court takes note of an Office Memo dated 14.1.2026
passed by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. whereby an
                                 2
                                              WRIC No. - 12337 of 2026

Authorised Controller was appointed and that said order was
upheld by a Single Bench of this Court vide a judgement dated
18.3.2026 passed in Writ-C No. 5820 of 2026 and same has
been challenged before Division Bench of this Court by way of
filing a Special Appeal, however, presently there is no interim
order, therefore, at this stage judgment dated 18.3.2026 still holds
good and order of appointment of Authorised Controller is still in
force.


3. Present case is arising out of an order dated 06.01.2026
whereby Vice Chancellor of Guru jambheshwar University,
Moradabad has declined to recognize election of petitioner
Committee of Management held on 5.10.2025 under the
provisions of Section 2(13) of Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act
1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1973’) on a ground that
said elections were conducted in absence of an Observer
appointed by said University. For reference Section 2 (13) of the
‘Act of 1973’ is reproduced hereinafter:
         “(13) "Management" in relation to an affiliated or
         associated college, means the Managing Committee or
         other body charged with managing the affairs of that
         college and recognised as such by the University :
            ¹[Provided that in relation to any such college
            maintained by a Municipal Board or a Nagar
            Mahapalika, the expression "Management", means the
            Education Committee of such Board or Mahapalika as
            the case may be and the expression "Head of the
            Management"      means     the   Chairman     of    such
            Committee];”


4. The Vice Chancellor while passing the impugned order has
referred an earlier order dated 24.8.2025 passed by the Vice
Chancellor whereby a recommendation was made under Section
                                  3
                                                 WRIC No. - 12337 of 2026

58 (1)    of the ‘Act of 1973’ for appointment of Authorised
Controller which was subsequently appointed by above referred
order dated 14.1.2026,which is still in force.


5. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learner Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is no mandatory requirement that election of a Committee of
Management of a College affiliated to a University be conducted
in presence of an observer appointed by said University, though
in normal course, a request is always made that an Observer be
appointed and in present case also, a request was made on
29.9.2025 and again on 4.10.2025 to send an Observer for
election scheduled on 5.10.2025. However, when no Observer
was sent by the University, election of Committee of Management
took place on 5.10.2025 and details thereof was forwarded to the
Vice Chancellor of concerned University for its recognition.


6. Learner Senior Advocate further submitted that under the
provisions of ‘Act of 1973’, the Vice Chancellor has no power to
decide any dispute of election of Committee of Management and
in case recognition could not be granted for any reason, papers
could be remitted back to cure procedural defect if any. No order
for refusal to grant recognition can be passed.


7. Learner Senior Advocate also refers that no one has disputed
or challenged the election of Committee of Management, held on
05.10.2025 therefore, there was no valid reason for the Vice
Chancellor not to recognise the election.


8. Learner Senior Advocate in support of his submissions placed
reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Banaras Hindu
University Vs. Arya Vidya Sabha Kashi, 2003 0 Supreme (All)
                                   4
                                              WRIC No. - 12337 of 2026

2723, that Vice Chancellor can not decide any dispute of elections
set up by rival committees.


9. Per Contra, Sri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for the
respondent University and Sri Girish Kumar Yadav, learned
counsel for the respondent no.5 refers a judgment passed by 5
Judges Bench of this Court in Committee of Management J. N.
Smarak Post Graduate College Maharajganj Vs. Gorakhpur
University, 1998 SCC Online All 457, that impugned order ought
to have been challenge at first instance by way of filing a
Reference under Section 68 of Act of 1973, however petitioner
has not disclosed in the Writ Petition that there is an alternative
remedy available and has made an incorrect declaration in
paragraph 47 of writ petition as well as there is no averment as to
why at first instance this writ petition be heard on merit without
availing the alternative remedy.


10. On merits, learned counsel for the respondent University
submitted that Vice Chancellor is competent to refuse recognition
of a election of Committee of Management, if there is a procedural
defect and since admittedly election in question was conducted in
absence of an Observer of the University, therefore, an irregularity
was committed, accordingly recognition was rightly refused.


11. Learned counsel for the respondent University refers
impugned order that request for an Observer was made by the
petitioner was under consideration and certain documents were
demanded from the College, however instead of providing the
same, petitioners have rushed to conduct election and finally gave
only one day’s notice for sending an Observer for conducting
election and therefore, such haste suffers from malafides.
                                 5
                                              WRIC No. - 12337 of 2026

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.


13. The referred provision of ‘Act of 1973’ provides that
recognition of a Committee of Management is to be granted by
University, therefore, Vice Chancellor of the University can prima
facie verify whether elections were proper or not without entering
into any dispute except only for purpose to make communication
with duly elected Committee of Management (See Committee of
Management, S.D.P.G. Vs. V.B.S.Purvanchal University & Ors,
(2003)1 UPLBEC 462).


14. Learned counsel for the University has not shown any
provision that it is mandatory that election for Committee of
Management has to be conducted in presence of an Observer of
the University, though, as a practice followed earlier also that an
Observer is send by the University for a reason that elections be
conducted in a fair manner.


15. In case no member of Committee of Management or General
Body comes forward to dispute the election, there is no reason for
Vice Chancellor not to grant recognition to elected Committee of
Management only on a ground that no Observer of University was
present, without expressing any other concern or dispute in
election, therefore, impugned order is not legally sustainable.


16. Court also takes note of an argument of learned counsel for
the University that once an Authorized Controller was appointed
on 14.1.2026, any election is to be conducted by said Observer
only, however, Court finds that in present case, election was
conducted on 05.10.2025 i.e. prior to appointment of Authorized
Controller and matter was only to recognize the elected
Committee, therefore, such argument has no legal basis. Court
                                                              6
                                                                            WRIC No. - 12337 of 2026

                            also finds that there was no just reason to delay in sending the
                            Observer since first request was made on 29.09.2025 and
                            election was conducted on 05.10.2025. No reason was pointed
                            out by respondent whereby petitioner was asked to submit
                            documents as it was necessary to take a decision to send an
                            Observer.


                            17. Accordingly, impugned order dated 6.1.2026 is set-aside and
                            Vice Chancellor of concern University is directed to accord
                            recognition to petitioner’s Committee of Management within a
                            period of three weeks, if there is no other legal impediment.


                            18. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.




                                                                  (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

                            May 6, 2026
                            SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad