JUDGMENT B.N. Misra, J. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 3-11-1987 (Annexure 8) passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor, respondent 3 upholding the election to the Committee of Management, of the Hindu Inter College, Kiratpur, Bijnor, held on 22-2-1987. 2. Petitioner had been elected as Manager at the election held in the year 1975. According too him, subsequent to the 1975 election an authorised controller was appointed under S. 16D(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. However, the petitioner continued to work as manager under the direction of the authorised controller. Though elections were held three times, every time times, every time the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor disapproved the elections. The scheme of administration in respect of the INstitution under S. 16 of the Intermediate Education act was enforced from June, 1983, after approval by the Deputy Director of Education, respondent 2. Annexure I is a copy of the Scheme of Administration. The Scheme of Administration inter alia provides that if within a period of three years and one month, the freshly elected committee of Management does not assume office, the term of the old committee off Management and its office bearers shall automatically come to an end and thereafter the Deputy Director of Education shall appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak, who shall take over the management and take steps for holding the election to the Committee of Management. According to the petitioner, though the Deputy Director of Education had not appointed any 'Prabandh Sanchalak', some Members of the general Body requested the District Inspector foo Schools and with his permission conducted the election on 22-2-1987. This election was wholly illegal being in contravention of the express provisions of the Scheme of administration. After the expiry of three years and one month, the term of the last committee of Management came to an end, and thereafter election be held only under Cl. 8 of the Scheme. At the point of time Cl. 9 was inapplicable. Even otherwise, Cl. 9 required six Members, two from each of the categories of 'Sanrakshak Sadasya', life members and ordinary members, to request the District Inspector of Schools for permission to hold the elections, but in the present case the requisition for election held on 22-2-1987 had been submitted by Members who were not entitled to sign the requisition. Even otherwise, Cl. 9 required six Members, two from each of the categories of 'Sanrakshak Sadasya', life members and ordinary members, to request the District Inspector of Schools for permission to hold the elections, but in the present case the requisition for election held on 22-2-1987 had been submitted by Members who were not entitled to sign the requisition. It is also stated that the election on 22-2-1987 was held under the supervision of Sri S.S. Gupta, who had been authorised by the District Inspector of Schools to conduct the election. After the election the District Inspector of Schools approved the new committee of Management on 28-2-1987, vide Annexure 4. The petitioner brought it to the notice off the deputy Director of education that thee election on 22-2-1987 had not been held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and that the District Inspector of Schools had wrongly approved the said election vide his order dated 28-2-1987. The deputy Director of Education thereafter wrote to the District Inspector of Schools to pass necessary orders regarding approval of the Committee of Management keeping in view of the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the election held on 22-2-1987. The District Inspector of schools by his order dated 15-6-1987 recalled his earlier to the order dated 28-2-1987 giving approval to the newly elected Committee of Management. Thereafter respondent 4, who had been elected as Manager at the election held on 22-2-1987, filed writ petition No. 11362 of 1987, challenging the order dated 15-6-1987 (Annexure 5 to the present writ petition) which according to him was passed without any notice to him. After the filing of the aforesaid writ petition, the Deputy Director of Education passed orders on 25-8-1987 (Annexure SCA 1) appointing the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bijnor, as the Prabandh Sanchalak and directing him too hold fresh election to the committee of Management. This order of the deputy Director of Education was also challenged by the respondent 4 in the aforesaid writ petition. This order of the deputy Director of Education was also challenged by the respondent 4 in the aforesaid writ petition. By order dated 15-9-1987 this court set aside the order dated 15-6-1987 (Annexure 5) passed by the District Inspector of Schools withdrawing approval to the committee of Management elected on 22-2-1987 and order dated 25-8-1987 (Annexure SCA 1) passed by the Deputy Director of education appointing the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bijnor, as the 'Prabandh Sanchalak' and directed the District Inspector of Schools to hear the concerned parties and decide whether the recognition granted in favour of respondent 4 should be with drawn. Further direction was given to the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bijnor, to continue to function as the Administrator till the decision of the District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor heard the parties, the petitioner and respondent 4, and decided that the election to the Committee of Management held on 22-2-1987 was in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and valid. It is this order of the District Inspector of Schools which that the election to the committee of management should have been held under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration by appointment of a 'Prabandh Sanchalak; by the deputy Director of education and not under Cl. 9 of the scheme of Administration under authority of the District Inspector of Schools on requisition by sex members of the Society. 3. In his counter the respondent 4 has stated that the election held on 22-2-1987 was in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and that 172 embers including the petitioner out of total membership of 181 had participated in the election. It is stated that the petitioner had been provided with an escort because of his weak vision, vide Annexure CA 1,. It is also stated that the petitioner had been elected as Manager in the year 1975 and his term expired in 1978. THe Scheme of Administration came into force in June 1983. tIt is alleged that in spite of repeated requests by the members of the General body, the petitioner illegally continued to hod the office of Manage without taking any steps to hold fresh elections. THe Scheme of Administration came into force in June 1983. tIt is alleged that in spite of repeated requests by the members of the General body, the petitioner illegally continued to hod the office of Manage without taking any steps to hold fresh elections. The directions to the petitioner from the District Inspector of Schools and the District Magistrate, who was the President, for the purpose of holding elections have been filed as Annexures CA 2 to CA 5 to the counter. the Authorised Controller, who had been appointed under S. 16D(4) of the Intermediate education act, had also written to the petitioner regarding several irregularities and illegalities in the management, vide Annexure CA 6. In spite of these repeated requests and direction, the petitioner failed to take any steps to hold fresh elections. In these circumstances and when the Deputy Director of Education did not appoint 'Prabandh Sanchalak' under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration, sex members of the General body requested the District Inspector of schools for permission to hold fresh election under Cl. 9 of the Scheme of Administration. It is asserted that the General Body comprises only of life members and there are no other Patron members or ordinary members and therefore the requisition sent to the Inspector by the sex life members was valid and proper. Annexure 2 is a copy of the said requisition. This assertion has not bee denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. It is further stated in the counter that on receipt off the requisition from the members the District Inspector of Schools requested the Authorised Controller to hold the election. The scheme for the election is contained in Annexure 3. It was duly published in newspapers and registered notices wee also sent to all the members of the General Body. The District Inspector of Schools had appointed sri Kirshna Swarup Sharma as the observer. The elections were there after held on 22-2-1987 by the authorised Controller in the presence of the observer and in accordance with the scheme of Administration. The respondent 4 was elected as the Manager and other office-bearers were also duly elected at the said election held on 22-2-1987. The District Inspector of Schools then gave his approval to the newly elected committee of Management, vide hi order dated 28-2-1987 Annexure 4). The respondent 4 was elected as the Manager and other office-bearers were also duly elected at the said election held on 22-2-1987. The District Inspector of Schools then gave his approval to the newly elected committee of Management, vide hi order dated 28-2-1987 Annexure 4). However, at the instance of the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Education wrote to the District Inspector of Schools to reopen the matter and the District inspector of Schools without hearing respondent 4 recalled his order dated 28-2-1987. The Deputy Director of Education next appointed a 'Prabanch Sanchalak' under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of administration vide his order dated 25-8-1987 (Annexure SCA 1). Respondent 4 challenged the orders dated 28-2-1987 passed by the District inspector of Schools and 25-8-1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Education in writ petition No. 11362 of 1987. That writ petition was disposed of by this court on 15-9-1987. The orders off the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of education were set aside and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to hear both the parties and decide whether the recognition granted to the Committee of Management elected on 22-2-1987 should be withdrawn. As per directions of this curt the District Inspector of schools heard both sides and decided that the election held on 22-2-1987 was in accordance with the Scheme of administration and valid. In these circumstances thee respondent 4 has prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed. 4. In view of the respective stands of the parties it would be appropriate to extract Cls. In these circumstances thee respondent 4 has prayed that the writ petition should be dismissed. 4. In view of the respective stands of the parties it would be appropriate to extract Cls. 8 and 9 of the Scheme of administration which provide as follows : "( 8 ) izcU/k lfefr dk dk;Zdky%& inkf/kdkjh ,oa lfefr ds lnL;ksa dk dk;Zdky rhu o"kZ dk gksxkA dk;Z vof/k lekIr gks tkus ij vxys ,d ekl rd gh inkf/kdkjh cus jg ldsxsA ;fn rhu o"kZ ds ckn ,d ekg ds vUnj uo p;fur lfefr] dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugh djrh rks 3 o"kZ 1 ekg ckn dkykrhr lfefr dk dk;Zdky Lor% lekIr le>k tk;sxk vkSj lEHkkxh; mif'k{kk funs'kd n~okjk euksrhr ,o O;fDr izcU/k lapkyd dk;Zjr ekuk tk;sxk] ftlsa izcU/kkf/kdj.k ds iw.kZ vf/kdkj gksaxsA og izcU/k lapkyd uo p;fur lfefr dks 'kh?kzkfr'kzh?k dk;Zjr djk;sxk vkSj ;fn pquko ugh gqvk rks pquko djkds p;fur lfefr dks dk;Zjr djk;sxk vkSj ;fn izcU/k lfefr;ksa esa vf/kdkj dk nkok gS rks ftlds i{k esa lEHkkxh; mif'k{kk funs'kd dk fu.kZ; gks mls dk;Zjr djk;sxkA ( 9 ) pquko dh izfdz;kA ( 1 ) pquko ds fy;s lk/kkj.k lHkk dh cSBd izcU/kd o v/;{k feydj cyk;sxsaA cSBd ds uksfVl ij nksuksa ds gLrk{kj gksxsaA ;fn og ,slk ugh djrs gS rks lk/kkj.k lHkk ds laj{kd ,oa vkthou rFkk lk/kkj.k ekU; lnL; Js.kh; ds nks lnL; N% feydj lk/kkj.k lHkk dh cSBd pquko ds fy;s fujh{kd dh vuqefr ls [kqyk ldsxsaA v/;{k o izcU/kd cSBd cqykrs gS rks v/;{k v/;{krk djsxk vU;Fkk lnL; vkil esa feydj ,d cSBd dk v/;{k cuk;sxsaA ( 2 ) izcU/k lfefr ds rhu o"kZ dk dk;Zdky iw.kZ gksus ls nks ekl iwoZ izcU/k v/;{k pquko dh frfFk ?kksf"kr djsxsa] bldh lwpuk fujh{kd n~okjk vuqeksfnr LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa izdkf'kr djk;sxsa rFkk lnL;ksa dks jftLVMZ uksfVl n~okjk HkstsxsaA ;fn lk/kkj.k lHkk ds lnL;ksa dh la[;k 200 ls vf/kd gS rks LFkkuh; lekpkj i= izdk'k ds vfrfjDr lk/kkj.k Mkd ls lwpuk nsuk i;kZIr gksxkA bl ?kks"k.kk esa pquko dk foLr`r dk;Zdze ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;sxk & vFkkZr fdl frfFkk rd ukekadu dc rd ijh{k.k rFkk dc rd uke okilh vkfn fd;k tk;sxkA pquko dk LFkku frfFk rFkk le; lfgr mlh foKkiu easa nsuk gksxkA ( 3 ) lk/kkj.k lHkk ds lnL;ksa dh lwph izcU/k lfefr ds rhu o"kZ ds dk;Zdky lekIr gksus ls 11 ekg iwoZ ?kksf"kr dj nh tk;sxh ftldh ikap izfr;k fujh{kd dks Hksth tk;sxhA rFkk ,d izfr lEHkkxh; mi f'k{kk funs'kd dks Hkh Hksth tk;sxhA ( 4 ) pquko dh lwpuk fujh{kd@ftykf/kdkjh rFkk iqfyl v/kh{kd dks Hkh nh tk;sxh rFkk muls ,d ,d izfrfuf/k pquko ds fy, Hkstus dh izkFkZuk dh tk;sxhA ;g rhuksa izfrfuf/k pquko ds i;Zos{kd gksaxsA ;s i;Zos{kd ,d fjiksVZ fujh{kd dks pquko ds ckn vxys fnu fujh{kd ds izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls HkstsxsaA fujh{kd blds vk/kkj ij lfefr dks ekU;rk iznku djsxsaA blds i'pkr~ gh og izcU/k lfefr fon;ky; esa igyh lfefr dk dk;Zdky lekIr gksus ij dk;Z xzg.k djsxsaA ( 5 ) pquko xqIr ernku n~okjk gksxkA pquko i= ij ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj gksus vfuok;Z gksxsaA ernku i= vxys pquko rd lqjf{kr j[ks tk;saxsaA ihBklhu vf/kdkjh fujh{kd dh lgefr ls pquko dh ?kks"k.kk djus okys vf/kdkfj;ksa vFkok lnL;ksa n~okjk pquko dh lwpuk nsus ds lkFk&lkFk fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk uke o irk Hkh pquko ds foKkiu esas fn;k tk;sxkA " It is not in dispute between the parties that the last election to the committee of management was held in the year 1975 and that thereafter an Authorised controller had been appointed under S. 16D(4) of the Intermediate Education Act, There can thus be no room for doubt that the term of three years and one month of the last committee of Management had long since expired and that fresh elections were overdue. It appears that the petitioner had failed to take steps to hold fresh elections in spite of repeated requests from the members and directions of the district inspector of Schools and the District Magistrate. Though Cl. 8 of the Scheme of administration authorised the Deputy Director of education to appoint a 'Prabandh Sanchalak' to take over management and take steps for holding of fresh election, in the present case the Deputy Director of education failed to appoint any "Prabandh Sanhalak' and in those circumstances on 117-1986 six members of the general body sent a requisition to the District Inspector of schools for permission to hold fresh election. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Cl. 8 the Manager and President are required jointly to convene a meeting of the General Body for the purpose of holding elections and the notice for the meeting must be signed by both of them and should they fail to do so, six members, two each from the categories of 'Sanrakashak' members, life members and ordinary members, may with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools convene a meeting of the Generally to hold elections, provided all this is done within the period of three years and one month fixed under Cl. 8 of the scheme of Administration. According to earned counsel for petitioner, once the term of three years and one month is over, election to the Committee of Management can be held only by 'Prabandh Sanchalak' appointed by the Deputy director of education under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration and that rights of the members of the general body to request the District Inspector of Schools for permission to hold elections under Cl. 9(1) of the scheme off Administration cannot be invoked after expiry of the period of three years and one month. Learned counsel appearing for respondent 4, has on the other hand, submitted that the election held on 22-2-1987 on requisition by sex members was in accordance with the provisions contained in Cl. 9(1) of the Scheme of Administration and that there was no basis for the contention that the said election was held in contravention of the Scheme of Administration. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the scheme of Administration including the provisions contained in Cls. 8 and 9. 9(1) of the Scheme of Administration and that there was no basis for the contention that the said election was held in contravention of the Scheme of Administration. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the scheme of Administration including the provisions contained in Cls. 8 and 9. Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration fixes a certain term for the members of the Committee Management which is three years and provides that that may continue in office for only one more month after expiry of their term of three years and thereafter they cease to hold office. It is further provided that if the newly elected Committee of Management has not assumed office within the aforesaid period of three years and one month, the Deputy Director of Education shall appoint a 'Praandh Sanchalak' who shall take over the management and take steps for holding the lection. Thus under Cl. 8 the rights off the office-bearers of the committee of Management to continue in office come to an end on expiry of the period of three years and one month. The question is whether there is anything in that Cl. 8 which affects the rights of the members of the General body. Cl. 9(1) of the Scheme of Administration provides that the Manager and President shall jointly convene a meeting of the general Body to hold election and that the notice or the meeting shall be jointly singed by both of them. It therefore follows that after expiry off the period of three years and one month the Manager and the President of the old Committee of Management cannot convene a meeting of the General Body for the purpose of holding elections as on expiry of the said period they would have ceased to hold their respective offices, but it does not follow that in a situation where the newly elected Committee of Management has not assumed office within the period of three years and one month and the Deputy Director of Education has failed to appoint a 'Prabandh Sanchalak' under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration, the rights of six members of the general body to seek permission from the District INspector of Schools to convene a meeting of the general Body for the purpose of holding elections are no longer available to them after the expiry of the term of three years and one month. The right of the members of the general Body given to them under Cl. 9(1) of the Scheme of Administration are independent of the restrictions as to the term of the committee of management contained in Cl. 8 of the Scheme. In the present case as no steps had been taken by the deputy Director of Education under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of Administration, the elections held on 22-2-1987 under Cl. 9 of the Scheme as per directions of the District Inspector of Schools cannot be invalidated on the ground of contravention of the Scheme. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a photostat copy of the judgment dated 4-8-1987 of this Court in writ petition No. 1622 of 1987 wherein a direction was given to the Deputy Director of education to appoint an Administrator in terms of Cl. 8 of the scheme of administration and as reported in the judgment the case of the contesting respondents was that they had been elected at the elections held wit the permission of the District Inspector of Schools. It is not clear whether the point raised in this case by learned counsel for the petitioner was argued in the aforesaid writ petition, nor is there any discussion on the question. That decision was based on the facts of that case. Two other decisions of this court reported in 1985 Ed Cas 327 : 1986 All LJ 88 and 1986 Ed Cas 317 : (1987 All LJ 211), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, do not also contain any discussion on the question. 8. Further, in the present case t is worthy of note that though the Scheme of Administration had come into force in June, 1983, the deputy Director of Education had failed to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak in exercise of his powers under Cl. 8. Further, in the present case t is worthy of note that though the Scheme of Administration had come into force in June, 1983, the deputy Director of Education had failed to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak in exercise of his powers under Cl. 8 of the Scheme of administration and following the elections held on 22-2-1987 the subsequent order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 25-8-1987 (Annexure SCA 1) appointing a 'Prababdh Sanchalak' was set aside by this court in writ petition No. 11362 of 1987. In this view of the matter and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had himself participated in the election held on 22-2-1987, we find no reasons to interfere with the order dated 3-11-1987 passed by the District Inspector of Schools wherein he has held that the election held on 22-2-1987 was valid. 9. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the facts of this case parties shall bear their own costs.