JUDGMENT R.R. Rastogi, J. - A. S. H. P. Association petitioner no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Association) is the Society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act with its head office at Ganjdundwara, in the district of Etah The Association maintains an institution by name Har Narain Inter College, Ganjdundwara (hereinafter referred to as the institution). There is a Committee elected by the general body of Association which looks after its affairs. The institution has got a Scheme of Administration, framed under Section 16-A of the Intermediate Act, 1921 and thereunder its Committee of Management is elected for a patriot of three years at a time. Lala Hari Narain was elected Secretary of the Society in the election held on 24th October, 1969. The next election was due to be held in October, 1972; but, it was held in September 1973. Sri Mahtab Rai, petitioner no 3, convened a meeting of the general body of the Association on 20-9-1973 for electing the Committee of Managment of the Institution and in that election he was elected Secretary of the Association and Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution while a rival meeting convened by Lala Hari Narain was held on 17-9-1973. In that election Natbu Ram Gupta was elected Secretary and Ram Swarup Assistant Secretary of the Society and Laxmi Narain and Vijitendra Kumar, President and Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution. In September 1976, similar rival elections were held. Mahtab Rai convened the meeting on 20-9-76 and claimed to be the Secretary of the Society and Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution while in the other camp in the election held in 1976 Mohammad Zamir Ahmad Khan was elected Secretary-cum-Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution and Vijitendra Kumar was elected President of the Society. 2. The District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of Mahtab Rai, petitioner no. 3, as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution on 30-9-1976. Zamir Ahmad Khan made representations against that attestation on 8-10-1976 and 20-12-1977.It appears that the District Inspector of Schools did net pass any orders on those representations and Civil Misc. 2. The District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of Mahtab Rai, petitioner no. 3, as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution on 30-9-1976. Zamir Ahmad Khan made representations against that attestation on 8-10-1976 and 20-12-1977.It appears that the District Inspector of Schools did net pass any orders on those representations and Civil Misc. Writ No. 4594 of 1976 was filed before this Court by the Society and the Commit tee of Management That petition was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 26-5-1978, after observing "If the petitioner has filed any representation before the District Inspector of Schools, he may decide the same in accordance with law." 3. The District Inspector of Schools, thereafter, made an order on 9-6-1978 In which he held that the Committee of Management alleged to have been elected on 20-9-1976 was not properly constituted committee in accordance with the provisions of Scheme of Administration while the other Committee of Management of which Mohd, Zamir Ahmad Khan was the Manager had been properly elected. The attestation of the signature of Mahtab Rai by order dated 30-9-1976 was hence conceited and Moti Lal Verma, who had succeeded Zamir Ahmad Khan in the meantime was recognised as the manager of the Committee of Management of the institution From that order a representation was filed before the Deputy Director of Education, Agra, by Matab Rai on 19-6-1978 The Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 5-7-1978 set aside the order dated 9-6-1978 and directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide the controversy in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties Mahtab Rai simultaneously filed Writ Petition No. 5230 of 1978 against the order of the District Inspector of Schools aforesaid before this Court. That petition was ultimately dismissed on 20-9-1978. The Committee of Management of the institution through Moti Lal Verma as well filed a writ petition against the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 5-7-1978. That petition was ultimately dismissed on 20-9-1978. The Committee of Management of the institution through Moti Lal Verma as well filed a writ petition against the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 5-7-1978. That petition as well was dismissed Thereafter, the District Inspector Schools made an order dated 26-12-1978 giving recognition to the Committee of Management of which Moti Lal Verma is the Manager and he has atleaste his signature for the purposes of the discharge of statutory duties, It is this order which is sought to be quashed by the Committee of Management of the institution and the Association through Mahtab Rai as their Manager and Secretary and by Mahtab Rai in person. There is a further prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus order of direction commending the respondents not interfere with the functioning of the petitioner no. 1 as the Committee of Management and of the petitioner no. 3 as Manager of the institution. 4. The main burden of the arguments made before us on behalf of the petitioners by Sri N C. Upadhya, Advocate, was that the order dated 30-9-1976 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools after considering the rival claims of the parties and he had no power of review and that a plea of want of jurisdiction was repeatedly raised before him but he did not decide it. Thus the question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the order which was made by the District Inspector of Schools on 30-9-1976 had been passed by him after considering the rival claims. Mahtab Rai claims to have convened that meeting for 20th September, 1976 and according to him the elections were duly held on that date and the information was conveyed to the District Inspector of Schools on 21-9-1977. It was stated before us that if the office bearers of the rival Committee of Management had been elected on 18-9-1976. it could not be explained as to how information of the same was given to the District Inspector of Schools on 28-9-1976. It was stated before us that if the office bearers of the rival Committee of Management had been elected on 18-9-1976. it could not be explained as to how information of the same was given to the District Inspector of Schools on 28-9-1976. Anyhow, our attention was invited to the specific averments in the petition that on receipt of information election held on 20-9-1976 the District Inspector of Schools addressed certain communication to the Manager so elected and similar communications were addressed to the Manager of the rival Committee of Management and that would go to show that when he passed the aforesaid order, he had both the claims before him and he considered the same. The learned Chief Standing Counsel made available to us the relevant records and from the same we could not satisfy ourselves that the District Inspector of Schools while making the order on 30-9-1976 considered the rival claims. Admittedly he had not passed any specific order on that date. It appears that he only attested the signature of Mahtab Rai. It has been stated in the supplementary counter-affidavit of Raghubir Sahai Saxena, a Noter and Drafter in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Etah, that a letter dated 11-9-1979 signed by Sri Ram Swarup Cupta claiming to be the Secretary of the Association along with proceedings of the meeting held on 18-9-1976 pertaining to the Committee of Management of the Institution was received in the office of the Inspector of Schools on 20-9-1976. Another letter dated 22-9-1976 signed by Mohd. Zamir Ahmad Khan as Manager of the institution was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on the same date. On those two letters the then District Inspector of Schools directed Zabbar Ali, cleric to take necessary action. However, no such stpes were (taken by that clerk on any of those two letters. Copies of those two letters have been filed as Annexures SC-A-1 and SCA-2. It has been further stated in this affidavit in paragraph 4 :- "It is wrong to say that the verification of the signature of Sri Mahtab Rai as Manager of the College was done by the then District Inspector of Schools, Etah, after considering the claim of the two rival parties, one headed by Sri Mahtab Rai and the further headed by Sri Ram Swaiup Cupta. From the evidence it is evident that no action on the correspondence of Sri Gupta and Mobd. Zamir Ahmad Khan was taken." We have satisfied ourselves from the records also that no action was taken by Zabbar Ali clerk on these two letters despite the cider to that effect of the District Inspector of Schools. 5. In this connection it may also he noted that Sri Mabtab Rais letter was received in the office of the District inspector of Schools on 21-9-1976 and on the same date a reply to him was addressed arid that was meant to he dispatched by registered post but the delivery of the same was personally taken by Mahtab Rai on that very date. The Association and the Institution are at Ganjdundwara, while the office of the District Inspector of Schools on the just following date by post. Information was carried by him personally and he alia obtained from that office a reply to his letter. At the same time no action was taken on the correspondence of the rival Secretary of the Association and the Manager of the institution and hence it cannot be said that the District Inspector of Schools considered the rival claims of Ram Swarup Gupta and Mohd. Zamir Ahmad Khan. 6. There are some important circumstances as well which lend support to this conclusion. This order purports to have been passed on 30-9-1976 and only a few days thereafter, to be exact on 8-10-1976 representation was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools from Mohd. Zamir Ahmad Khan complaining that his claim for election as Manager of the institution had not been taken into consideration at all. No order whatsoever was passed on that representation as should have been done if the District Inspector of Schools while passing the order on 30-9-1976 had taken into consideration the rival claims. 7. There is yet another aspect and it is that there is no dispute that the elections of the Association as also of the Committee of Management of the institution had been last held on 4-10-1969 and Hari Narain was elected Secretary of the Association. Those election were for a period of three years and the term of that elected body came to an end on 3-10-1972. Those election were for a period of three years and the term of that elected body came to an end on 3-10-1972. It is admitted that no election was held either of the Association or office Committee of Management in that year and it was only held in September, 1973. Mehtab Rai being Manager of the institution elected in October 1969 could certainly not have called a meeting of the general body to elect a fresh Committee of Management. Only Hari Narain could have convent d such a meeting and it was he who had convened the meeting for 17-9-1973. It could not be understood as to how in the absence of the election in October, 1972 Hari Narain, who as the Secretary of the Association, could alone have convened the meeting of the general body for fresh election was unseated and Mahtab Rai became the Secretary of the institution as also Manager of the institution. Our attention was invited by Sri S. C. Khare, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents to Halsburys Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 9, page 60 which read and under : - "Where the character of a corporation provides that a particular officer shall be chosen annually, it is directory only and must not be construed as terminating the office at the end of the year after the exaction he will continue in his office until his death or removal or another is elected (if necessary)." 8. This aspect concerns the merits of the case and for the present we are not on merits because that would have been a matter for consideration of the District Inspector of Schools We have referred to this aspect only to show that in the circumstances of the case both preceding and following the disputed election and the order dated 30-9-1976, it cannot be said that this order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, after considering the rival claims. 9. On behalf of the petitioners considerable reliance was placed on certain decisions given in some civil suits but we do not think that the same are in any way relevant for the present purpose and at any rate they were not referred to by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools when he considered this matter ; nor were copies thereof placed before him. In regard to the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, with an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools the position is almost settled in so far as this Court is concerned in Writ Petition No. 12725 - Committee of Management S. A." V. Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools and others decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 24-11-1977, to which one of us was a party (Honble-Rastoge, J.) following principle was ennunciated : - "Under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as well as under the High Schools and Intermediate College Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the District Inspector of Schools of statutory character in collaboration with the Management of High Schools and Intermediate Colleges. These duties cannot be discharged by the District Inspector of Schools unless i.e. is in a position to find out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of the College. For this limited purpose the District Inspector of Schools must of necessity satisfy himself as to who, according to him, are validly elected office bearers of the institution. If any party feels dissatisfied with the administrative decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools he is at liberty to file a suit against the rival claimants for adjudication of their right either as office bearers or as members of the Managing Committee. In the event of a decree being obtained by such a party there can be little doubt that the District Inspector of Schools, in case he has taken a wrong decision, will after his decision and will recognise that party in whose favour decision has been given judicially." This decision has been followed in some other cases subsequently, See Committee of Management, through its Secretary v. The district Inspector of Schools Meerut and others (1978 ALR 122) Therefore, there is no scope for any interference with an order of the District Inspector of Schools having been passed on administrative level and in summary manner for his satisfaction as who are the real office bean rs of the Committee of Management of the institution. If any party feels dissatisfied with such an administrative decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools, he can institute a suit in the competent court for adjudication of the rival claims and decision of the civil court would be binding on the District Inspector of Schools. If, however, an order is made by the District Inspector of Schools without considering the rival claims or without hearing rival parties such an order cannot be sustained and this Court will interfere and directed him to pass an order alter hearing the parties, it is also settled that District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to review his earlier order provided that that order was passed after considering the rival claims or hearing the rival claimants. 10. In the present case, as we have held above, the order dated 30th September, 1976 was not passed after considering the rival claims or hearing the rival claimants The District Inspector of Schools was, therefore, right in disposing of the matter after considering the rival claims. Full opportunity was given of nearing to the petitioners. The fact that they did not avail of the same would not make any difference. The impugned order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools on an administrative level and in a summary manner for his satisfaction as to who are the real office bearers of the Committee of Management of the institution with whom he has to deal for discharging his statutory duties. In case the petitioners feel aggrieved with that order their remedy is to file a civil suit for adjudication of their claim. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition has no merits and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.