HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2071 of 2025 (M/S) Saurabh Bhushan ….......Petitioner Vs. Chief Education Officer and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tushar Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no.5. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) i. The challenge in this petition is made to letter dated 17.07.2025, issued by Election Officer, Shri Sanatan Dharm Prakash Chand Kanya Inter College, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the College”), by which, he has sought instructions from the respondent no.3/the District Education Officer, Haridwar (“the DEO”) with regard to the elections of the Manager of the College. According to his communication, there were two contestants for the position of the Manager; total 69 votes were cast, one vote was invalid and both the candidates i.e. the petitioner as well as the respondent no.5 received 34-34 votes, each of them. By lottery the result was proposed to be declared, but by his communication, the respondent no.4/Election Officer (“the Election Officer”) wrote to the DEO that for lottery, the respondent no.5 is not agreeable. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Election Officer cannot seeks direction from the DEO with regard to the election of the Manager. In fact, it is argued that the petitioner 2 has secured 35 votes, but even thereafter, treating 34 votes for each, the petitioner and the respondent no.5, the petitioner is still ready that the result may be declared based on the lottery, which was done for other members, but it was not done by the Election Officer instead an impugned communication was sent to the DEO, which is bad in the eyes of law. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 submits that now, a fresh election has already been ordered by the DEO, for which, communication has already been published in the daily newspaper “Rashtriyasahara Sahara” on 10.07.2025 and that Notification is not under challenge. 5. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to under what Scheme of Administration of the College, the procedure adopted is bad? He submits that under the Scheme, there is no provision of lottery, as such, though it was adopted for other members. He further submits that though fresh election is declared by the Election Officer for the position of Manager, but all the members need to be communicated about the Scheme of Election now, as per the Scheme of Administration. 6. Learned State Counsel gives a statement that the members would be informed about the new programme of election as per Scheme of Administration. 7. By the impugned communication the Election Officer has only sought directions from the DEO. But now, fresh elections have already been notified for 13.07.2025. What is being argued now, on behalf of the petitioner is that all the members should be notified 3 about this new schedule of election programme as per the Scheme of Administration. 8. Definitely, the members should be notified about the new schedule of election programme under the Scheme of Administration. This Court has no doubt that the Election Officer shall ensure that all the members are notified about the new election programme, in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. At this stage, in view of it, no interference is warranted. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.07.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60f5 4a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515A08 7CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.07.11 19:04:57 +05'30'