JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition is directed against an order dated 9th September, 1982 passed by the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools (for short R. I. G. S.) whereby the said officer declined to recognise the Committee of Management of which petitioner No. 2 Ram Briksba Rai claims to be the Manager on the ground that the elections held by the Petitioner-Committee of Management on 12th August, 1982 were not conducted in accordance with Clause 8 (b) of the approved scheme of Administration of the institution namely Rashtriya Kanya Inter College, Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur. 2. The relevant facts are that on 10th June, 1982 an election is stated to have taken place at which Ram Briksha Rai was elected as the Manager. By letter dated 17th August, 1982, Ram Briksh Rai informed the R. I. G. S, to attest his signatures under the payment of salaries Act. By the impugned order the R. I. G S. declined to accept the request of the petitioners on the ground that under Clause 8 (b) of the Scheme of Administration of the institution, the Management was obliged to give prior intimation of approval to the R. I. G S. of the date fixed for holding the elections of the Committee of Management together within the list of members of the General Body. The said clause further provided that on the intimation being received by the R.I.G.S. she will appoint an observer to watch the proceedings of the elections. The Management by means of a letter dated 10th June, 1982 intimated to the R. I.G.S that fresh elections are going to be held. This letter was received on 1st July, 1982 in the office of the R.I.G.S. In this letter the Management however, did not intimate to the R.I.G.S the date on which the elections were going to be held, with the result the R.I.G.S. could not appoint an observer to watch the proceedings of the elections. In this view of the matter, the newly elected Committee of Management could not be recognised and the Management was advised to hold fresh elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and they have prayed for the quashing of the said order. 4. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and they have prayed for the quashing of the said order. 4. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that before the impugned order was passed on 9fh September, 1982 the rival Committee of Management had filed objections before the R.I.G.S. challenging the validity of the elections of the petitioners' Committee of Management. Consequently under Sections 16 (a) (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act the R. I. G. S. was bound to refer the matter to the Deputy Director of Education. It is further submitted that the R. I. G. S. has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to hold fresh elections and there is no provision under the law empowering the R.I.G.S. to issue such directions. It was also urged that the R.I.G.S. did not give any opportunity to the petitioners before issuing such directions. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find no merit in the above contentions. In our opinion Section 16 (a) (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act has no application to the facts of the present case. The R.I.G.S was not required to determine any dispute between two rival Committees of Management. Consequently there was no occasion for referring the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education. The R. I. G. s. has simply refused to recognise the petitioners Committee of Management on a much narrower ground viz. that the elections set up by the petitioners not having been held in accordance with the mandatory provision of clause 8 (b) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, the same could not be recognised by her. We have gone through the affidavits filed by the parties as well as the annexures filed therewith and we find that the petitioners did not intimate the date of elections to the R.I.G.S. as was obligatory upon them under Clause 8 (b) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. In this view of the matter, the R. I. G. S. was perfectly right in not recognising the petitioner Committee of Management. 6. In this view of the matter, the R. I. G. S. was perfectly right in not recognising the petitioner Committee of Management. 6. As regards the contention of the petitioners that the R.I.G.S. has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the petitioners to hold fresh elections, suffice it to say that these directions are only consequential in nature and they flow directly from the finding of the R.I.G.S., that the elections of the petitioners were not held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the college, which finding as observed above, was fully justified in view of the fact that the petitioners had not intimated the date of elections to the R I. G. S. to enable her to appoint an observer. We do not agree with contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Clause 8 (b) of the Scheme of Administration is merely direct and not mandatory. In our opinion, Clause 8 (b) of the Scheme of Administration of the college is mandatory in character and goes to the very root of the validity of the elections. It provides for intimation to the R. I. G. S. so as to enable her to appoint an observer to watch the proceedings, at which the elections of office-bearers are held. 7. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel that the R.I.G.S. ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners before issuing the impugned directions, we are clearly of the opinion that no such opportunity is contemplated either under the provisions of the Statute or on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioners had submitted to the proceedings for the election for being recognised by the R.I.G.S. The R.I G.S. held on the material which was brought before her that the election was not held according to law. Having held so, the R.I.G.S. had no option but to observe that the new Committee of Management, if it desires to be recognised ought to hold fresh elections according to the Scheme of Administrations. We find nothing wrong in such directions being issued by the R.I.G.S. in view of the fact and circumstances of the case. 8. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 9th September, 1982 by which the R.I.G.S had directed single operation of the accounts of the college. We find nothing wrong in such directions being issued by the R.I.G.S. in view of the fact and circumstances of the case. 8. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 9th September, 1982 by which the R.I.G.S had directed single operation of the accounts of the college. In the background of the finding recorded by the R.I G.S. in the earlier order passed by her on 8th September* 1982. The R. I. G. S. was fully justified in directing single operation as there was no valid Committee of Management of existence. Under such circumstances, the R. I. G. S. was justified in directing single operation of the accounts of the college. 9. In view of what has been stated herein above, the Management may now held fresh election according to law. 10. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. But we make no order as to costs. 11. Interim orders are hereby vacated.