JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - By this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner No. 2 Chhatar Singh seeks relief against the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Meerut (Respondent No. 1), dated 20th of June, 1984 appointing Sri Satya Prakash Tayal, Asstt. Deputy Inspector of Schools (Respondent No, 3), as Manager of the institution known as Kisan Higher Secondary School, Barauli and authorising him to, aftsr finalising the list of members, hold fresh elections for constituting a new Committee of Management for running the said institution. 2. Kisan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harauli is an educational institution recognised under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and its affairs are to be conducted in accordance with the scheme of administration framed under the provisions of the said Act. The Scheme of Administration framed by the institution was approved by the Deputy Director of Education, Meerut on 4.9.1965. Subsequently, the same was, vide order, dt. 18th of December, 1983, amended so as to bring it in accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended by the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980. 3. Petitioner Chatar Singh claims that in the normal course election of the members and the office bearers of the Managing Committee as envisaged by the duly approved Scheme of Administration took place on 19th of April, 1981 in which Sri Chandar Singh was elected as the President and the Petitioner was elected as the Manager. In the same meeting, one Sheoraj Singh was elected as Asstt. Manager. These office bearers were to, as provided by the Scheme, hold office for a period of three years or till their successors were duly elected. In the month of January, 1984, the Petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Principal of the institution and made an order placing him under suspension. The Principal of the institution then addressed a letter to the District Inspector of Schools on 2nd of February, 1984 contending that the order placing him under suspension had been made by persons, who claimed to be members of a Managing Committee which had no legal existence and that he continued to be the Principal of the institution. along with the aforesaid letter the principal also submitted a list of persons who, according to him, were the members and office bearers of the Committee of Management entitled to function as such. along with the aforesaid letter the principal also submitted a list of persons who, according to him, were the members and office bearers of the Committee of Management entitled to function as such. The District Inspector of Schools, vide his order, dated 25th of February, 1984, recognised Sri Udal Singh (Respondent No. 4) as Manager of the institution. 4. Petitioner No. 2 then made a representation to the Deputy Director of Education contending that Sri Udal Singh, who had been recognised by the District Inspector of Schools as a Manager of the institution, was not even a member of the society and that all proceedings taken by various persons to remove him from the office of Manager, vide resolution purported to have been passed on 31st of January, 1984, were absolutely illegal and void. He, therefore, prayed that the order of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 25th of February, 1984 be set aside and the list of members and office bearers submitted by the Principal on 2nd of February, 1984 be treated as null ani void. 5. The Deputy Director of Education took notice of the dispute and issued notices u/s 16A(7) of the Act to concerned parties requiring them to place their respective versions before him. Then Deputy Director also made an order staying operation of the order made by the District Inspector of Schools on 25.2.1984 recognising Sri Udal Singh as the Manager and instructed him to, in case there was some difficulty in disbursing the salary of teachers and other employees of the institution, take requisite action in that regard in accordance with the provisions contained in Payment of Salaries Act. The District Inspector of Schools, vide his order, dated 12.4.1984 made under the provisions of Payment of Salaries Act directed single operation of institution's account. The Petitioners then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court and obtained an order staying operation of the District Inspector of School's order, dated 12.4.1984. 6. In pursuance of the notices issued by the Deputy Director of Education in connection with the dispute regarding right to manage the institution, both Petitioner No. 2 and Sri Udal Singh put in their respective claims before the Deputy Director of Education. 6. In pursuance of the notices issued by the Deputy Director of Education in connection with the dispute regarding right to manage the institution, both Petitioner No. 2 and Sri Udal Singh put in their respective claims before the Deputy Director of Education. According to Sri Udal Singh, last elections for constituting the Committee of Management were held on 20th of April, 1981 and not on 19th of April 1981 as alleged by Petitioner No. 2. He claimed that as a result of the said election, amongst others, following persons were elected as office bearers of the Committee: 1. Sri Balbir Singh, President, 2. Sri Chhatar Singh, Manager, and 3. Sri Rampal Singh, son of Sri Chhatar Singh, Asstt. Manager. Inasmuch as it was not open to the father and son to act as Manager and Asstt. Manager at one and the same time, steps were taken to remove Petitioner No. 2 from the office of Manager. Petitioner No. 2 was, vides resolution, dated 31st of January, 1984. removed from the office held by him and in his place Sri Udal Singh was elected as Manager for running the institution for the remaining period. 7. While the dispute was still pending consideration before the Deputy Director of Education, Petitioner Chhatar Singh claims to have convened a meeting for electing the members and office bearers of the Committee of Management for the next three years on 15.4.1985. According to him, he was re-elected as Manager with Sri Chandar Singh as the President and Sri Sheoraj Singh as Asstt. Manager. The District Inspector of Schools, however, informed Petitioner No. 2 that as the election had not been conducted in accordance with the procedure specified in the amended Scheme of Administration, the same was of no consequence. Petitioner No. 2 then acting upon the advice of the District Inspector of Schools got a notice, for holding the elections, published in newspaper on 1st of June, 1984. He claims that fresh elections were infact held on 24th of June, 1984 in which the same team which had been elected in the meeting of 15th of April, 1984 was re-elected. 8. He claims that fresh elections were infact held on 24th of June, 1984 in which the same team which had been elected in the meeting of 15th of April, 1984 was re-elected. 8. The Deputy Director of Education, after considering the matter in detail, was inclined to the view that the case of Petitioner No. 2 that in the year 1981 the elections for the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management took place on 19th of April, 1981 did not appear to be correct. And according to him, the election in that year took place on 20th of April, 1981 in which the persons mentioned by Udal Singh, namely, Sri Balbir Prasad, Petitioner No. 2 and Ram Pal Singh were elected as President, Manager and Asstt. Manager respectively. He held that under the Rules, it was not possible for Petitioner No. 2 and his son Rampal Singh to act as Manager and Asstt. Manager at one and the same time. Accordingly, the only course open was to remove Sri Chhatar Singh from the Managing Committee. However, inasmuch as the resolution, dated 31.1.1984 removing Chhatar Singh from the post of manager was, as per provisions of the amended Scheme of Administration, not placed before the general meeting within one month, it became inoperative. The Deputy Director of Education then went on to observe that in any case, the terms of the elected Committee of Management expired on 22nd of April, 1984 and as per clause 7' of the amended Scheme of Administration, the term of the office bearers of the said Committee also came to an end on 23rd of May, 1984. The elections held by Chhatar Singh on 24th of June, 1984 were irregular and of no effect. Inasmuch as, no member of the old Committee of Management existed, he had no option but to appoint an Administrator and to direct him to hold fresh elections for constituting the Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of the amended Scheme of Administration. In the result, the Deputy Director passed the impugned order on 20th of June, 1984 appointing Sri Satya Prakash Tayal, Asstt. Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, as the Administrator and required him to make arrangements for holding fresh elections for constituting the new Committee of Management of the institution in accordance with the provisions of the amended Scheme of Administration. 9. Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, as the Administrator and required him to make arrangements for holding fresh elections for constituting the new Committee of Management of the institution in accordance with the provisions of the amended Scheme of Administration. 9. Aggrieved by the Deputy Director's order, dated 20th of June, 1984, the Petitioners filed the present petition before this Court and prayed that it may be quashed and the Respondents be restrained from interfering with Petitioner's right to function as Manager of the institution. Subsequently, Petitioner filed an application on 20th of December, 1984 praying that he may be allowed to amend the writ petition and he be permitted to incorporate certain additional facts and new grounds directed towards questioning the effect of the amended Scheme of Administration. 10. It is not disputed that according to the original Scheme of Administration as approved by the Deputy Director, the members and office bearers of the Committee of Management, whose term expired, were to continue to hold office till their successors were elected. However, the said Scheme was amended, vide order of the Deputy Director, dated 19.12.1983 and as per clause 7' of the amended Scheme, the term of Committee as well as that of its members is 3 years, and on expiry of the said period the members are to continue to hold office only for a period of one month more. The clause further provides that in case no new committee takes over on the expiry of three years and one month, the term of the Committee and its members would automatically come to an end and the Deputy Director has to appoint a Prabandh Sinkhole (Administrator) who has to take immediate steps for holding elections for constituting the Committee of Management and who has to, in the meanwhile, exercise full powers of the Committee of Management for managing the institution. In the instant case, if the matter is looked into from the point of view of the amended Scheme Administration, there is no escape from the conclusion that in any case, the said period of three years and one month expired on 23.5.1984 and the Petitioner could not, there-after, act as Manager of the institution on the basis of the elections held in the year 1981. 11. 11. Learned Counsel or the Petitioners contended that in any case the elections in tie case were held by Petitioner No. 2 on 15th of April, 1984 i.e., within a period of 3 years, but then under the advice of the District Inspector of Schools, they were again held on 24.6.1984 after making necessary advertisement in newspaper on 1st of June, 1984. According to the learned Counsel, since the elections had already taken place, the Deputy Director could not take recourse to Clause 7' of the amended Scheme of Administration and appoint an Administrator requiring him either to hold fresh elections for the Committee of Management or to manage the institution in the meanwhile. 12. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Even if for arguments sake, it be assumed that the Petitioner was competent to act as Manager on 15th of April, 1984 (a question on which we are not expressing any concluded opinion) and was, on that date, competent to convene a meeting for holding the elections for constituting a new Committee of Management, the said meeting had, as pointed out by the District Inspector of Schools, not been validly convened. The Petitioner also accepted this position when he took steps to convene a fresh meeting by inserting notices in the newspaper, dated 1.6.1984. Having done so, it is no more open to the Petitioner to rely upon the elections that were held at his instance on 15th of April, 1984. That election, therefore, cannot be relied upon to take the case out of the ambit of Clause 7' of the amended Scheme of Administration. It is not the case of the Petitioner that any other meeting for the purpose took place within the period of three years and one month. Tie meeting convened by means of the notice published in the newspaper on 1st of June, 1984 admittedly fell outside the period of 3 years and one month specified in Clause 7' of the amended Scheme of Administration. There is thus no escape from the position that in the instant case, Clause 7' of the amended Scheme of Administration became operative and the Committee of Management along with its members had ceased to exist. There is thus no escape from the position that in the instant case, Clause 7' of the amended Scheme of Administration became operative and the Committee of Management along with its members had ceased to exist. In the circumstances, only course open to the Deputy Director was to appoint an Administrator and to direct him to hold fresh elections for constituting a new Committee of Management. The elections alleged to have taken place on 24th of June, 1984 are, in the circumstances, of no consequence. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director, appears to be fully in consonance with the provisions contained in Clause 7' of the amended Scheme of Administration. 13. Faced with the above position, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contended that in the circumstances, modification of the Scheme of Administration directed by the Deputy Director, vide his order dated 19th of December, 1983, was illegal and that the rights of the parties continued to be governed by the original Scheme as approved by the Deputy Director in the year 1965. 14. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, referred us to the provisions contained in Section 16D of the Act which empower the State to appoint an Authorised Controller for running a recognised institution in certain contingencies. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the Sc! erne of Administration cannot make a provision for appointment of an Authorised Controller or Administrator in circumstances other than those specified in Section 16D of the Act. In the instant case, the Deputy Director has appointed an Administrator to run the institution on ground that the new Managing Committee has not been elected within the stipulated time. This, according to the Petitioner, cannot be done as it is not one of the contingencies for the purpose envisaged by Section 16D(3) of the Act. 15. Section 16CC of the Act provides that the Scheme of Administration in relation to any institution whether recognised before or after the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980, shall not be inconsistent with the provisions laid down in Schedule III which stipulates that every Scheme of Administration shall provide for the procedure of constituting the Committee of Management and for periodical elections. Regulations framed under the Act, inter alia, require that a Scheme of Administration should provide for a procedure for constituting the Committee of Management and term of its office. In our opinion a provision in a Scheme of Administration laying down the term of office of the members of a Committee of Management and that such members shall cease to hold such office automatically on expiry of a particular term, is fully in consonance with the provisions contained in the Act, the Schedule and the Regulations framed under the Act and no exception can be taken to it. Likewise, no exception can be taken to the provision in the amended Scheme that in such cases the person appointed by the Deputy Director shall take steps for holding the election for constituting the Committee of Management. Making of such provision comes within the ambit of the authority to make provision for 'constituting the Committee of Management for periodical elections. 16. Only question that survives for consideration in this regard is whether in the context of the provision contained in Section 16D of the Act, in cases where the term of a Committee of Management and its members has come to an end and there is no one competent to run the affairs of the institution, can the Scheme make a provision authorising the Deputy Director to nominate person to run the affairs of the institution till a new body competent to take over the management of the institution, comes into existence. 17. In the Committee of Management and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Education and Another, (1980) AWC 399 a Full Bench of this Court, after considering relevant provisions of the Act, observed thus: The use of the word " shall amongst other matters " in Sub-section (1) of Section 16A leaves no room for doubt that apart from the matters specifically mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 16A, a Scheme can legitimately provide for other matters, provided they are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act or the regulations framed there under and aim at proper and efficient administration and management of recognised institution, which is essential for ensuring a satisfactory educational system. 18. 18. In the case before us there can be no doubt that the provision in the amended Scheme to the effect that where the term of the Managing Committee and its members has come to an end and there is no one to run the affairs of the institution, the institution should be managed by a nominee of the Deputy Director of Education till a competent body comes into existence, is a provision which is aimed at proper and efficient administration and management of the institution. What has to be looked into in this regard is whether such a provision in the Scheme is in conflict with any provision contained in of or the Rules and Regulations framed there under. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the provisions contained in Clause 7' of the amended Scheme of Administration had the effect of contravening the provisions of Section 16D of the Act. Section 16D deals with appointment of an Administrator or an Authorised Controller to run the affairs of an institution in certain contingencies mentioned therein. Accordingly, where an Administrator has to be appointed in the contingencies mentioned in Section 16D, he has to be so appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. It may be that in such cases the Scheme of Administration cannot lay down a procedure different from that stipulated by Section 16D. However, it does not mean that in contingencies to which Section 16D does not apply, no provision for interim management can be made in the Scheme even though such a provision is aimed at a proper and efficient administration and management of the institution. Such a provision can exist in the scheme of administration without in any way affecting the scope and ambit of the field covered by Section 16D. In the circumstances, no question of any conflict between the Scheme and the provisions contained in Section 16D can possibly arise. We are also not prepared to read in Section 16D of the Act any implication that the legislature intended to completely rule out a provision being made in the Scheme, for proper and efficient administration and management of an institution in contingencies not covered by Section 16D of the Act. 19. No other provision has been brought to our notice which would stand stultified by the provisions contained in Clause 7' of the Scheme of Administration. 19. No other provision has been brought to our notice which would stand stultified by the provisions contained in Clause 7' of the Scheme of Administration. As already stated, the provision contained in the Scheme of Administration for appointment of an Authorised Controller for running the institution in cases where the office Marers of the Managing Committee have actually ceased to hold office after expiry of their term is a provision which can co-exist along with the provisions contained in Section 16D. We are accordingly of opinion that the Scheme does not stand vitiated for afore-mentioned reason. 20. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners next contended that under the law it was for the Management to frame the Scheme of Administration and to make amendments therein. The Deputy Director of Education could, if at all, call upon the Management to modify the Scheme of Administration. He could not himself matte any modification in the Scheme till the same was proposed by the Management and that the Scheme would not stand amended or modified till the Management had passed a resolution in terms of the direction in that regard issued by the Deputy Director. Apart from the fact that on behalf of the Respondents it has been asserted that the direction made by the Deputy Director for amending the Scheme in the year 1983 has actually been approved by the duly constituted Managing Committee, we feel that the Petitioners cannot be permitted to raise these grounds at this stage. The order making amendment in the Scheme of Administration was made by the Deputy Director as far back as 18 the of December, 1983. The Petitioner did not take any steps to question that order immediately, instead when it was brought to his notice that the elections had to be conducted in accordance with the amended Scheme of Administration, he accepted the advice and made an attempt to hold fresh elections in accordance with the provisions contained in the amended Scheme of Administration. It is only when it has been found that the Petitioner is, under the amended Scheme of Administration not entitled to function as a Manager of the institution that he has now taken up the point to question the applicability of the amended Scheme of Administration. It is only when it has been found that the Petitioner is, under the amended Scheme of Administration not entitled to function as a Manager of the institution that he has now taken up the point to question the applicability of the amended Scheme of Administration. In view of the conduct of the Petitioner, we are not inclined to permit him to raise any question with regard to any infirmity in the amended Scheme of Administration at this stage. 21. In the result, we are not satisfied that the Scheme of Administration as amended, vide order of the Deputy Director of Education, dated 19th of December, 1983, suffers from any infirmity. The impugned order being perfectly in consonance with the amended Scheme of Administration cannot be interfered with. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.