JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petition assails the validity of two orders - one, dated 13.12.1987 (Annexure 13 to the petition) holding that the Asst. Director of Education (Basic) is competent to decide the dispute giving rise to this petition and, two the order bearing the same date also passed by the same authority directing the management to hold fresh elections in accordance with the bye - laws of the Society running the school under the supervision of the District Basic Education Officer or an officer authorised by him (Vide Annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit). 2. The petitioners claim to represent the management of a Junior High School on the basis of election alleged to have been held on 15.12.1985. Their case is that in recognition of the said elections the Basic Shiksha Adhikari attested the signatures of the office bearers of that committee by his order dated 30.1.1986. However, at the instance of the petitioner's rivals who arc arrayed as respondents No. 2 and 3, the Asstt. Director of Education has without any legal authority chosen to interfere with the rights of the petitioners to run the institution by ordering fresh election when under the bye - laws the petitioners' Committee had a right to continue for three years w.e.f. 15.12.85. 3. Sri R.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the validity of the impugned orders on the ground that the Assistant Director of Education has no jurisdiction under the U.P. Basic Education Act to examine the validity of the election held for the constitution of die Committee of Management. 4. We are unable to agree, Section 12 of the aforesaid Act provides : "12. Control over Basic Schools - (1) The Director may, from time to time, inspector cause to be inspected any basic School and also the records and proceedings of the local body concerning or connected with discharge of the functions of the local body in respect of basic education. (2) The director may direct the management of a basic school to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. (3) If the management of a basic school fails to comply with any direction made under sub - section (2) of the Director may, after consideration of the explanation or representation. (2) The director may direct the management of a basic school to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. (3) If the management of a basic school fails to comply with any direction made under sub - section (2) of the Director may, after consideration of the explanation or representation. If may, given or made by the management, refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such school. (4) On receipt of a recommendation under sub - section (3) in respect of any basic school, the Board may withdraw the recognition of that school." 5. It will be seen that over all control of basic schools has been vested under the Act in the Director. Under sub - section (1) of Section 12 the Director is authorised to inspect or cause to be inspected any basic school and its records. Sub section (2) vests in the Director the power to direct the management of basic schools to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. To our mind, sub - section (2) of section 12 is wide enough to authorise the Director to examine the question whether prima facie the persons who claim to represent the management of the institution are legally entitled to do so. This necessarily means that the Director is authorised to satisfy himself by holding an enquiry. However, summary, whether the persons alleging to represent the management have been lawfully elected as the Committee of Management. This limited power the Director clearly enjoys in exercise of his overall control to ensure that the authorities constituted under the Act required to deal with the management of the institution are dealing with a set of people who have at best some semblance of a legal right to represent the management. Disbursement of salaries to the teachers and employees of the School. For example, is one such duty for the proper discharge of which it is essential to examine whether the person. Through whom salaries are being distributed are the lawfully constituted Committee of Management. The question as regards the validity of elections on the basis of which a group of persons claims to be the lawfully constituted Committee of Management incidentally arising for consideration, can also be looked into at the administrative level by the Director exercising over all control over the basic schools. The question as regards the validity of elections on the basis of which a group of persons claims to be the lawfully constituted Committee of Management incidentally arising for consideration, can also be looked into at the administrative level by the Director exercising over all control over the basic schools. The Director can order the management to remove the defect in its constitution under Section 12 (2). 6. We, therefore, hold that in the exercise of over - all supervision and control vested in him under Section 12 of the Act the Director can order the management to remove the defect in its constitution by holding fresh elections in accordance with the bye - laws so that a lawfully constituted Committee of Management comes into being. Such a power, in our opinion, clearly flows from sub - section 2 of Section 12. We must, however, hasten to add that the decision of the Director as regards tire validity of the constitution of the Committee of Management will be subject to the decision of a court having jurisdiction. 7. We may now briefly comment on the decision cited for the petitioners none of which, in our view, lends any support to the petitioners. The first of these, reported in 1983 Education Cases 243 : Committee of Management Dr. Rajendra Prasad Laghi Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Deoria and others, is an order rejecting a writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available to him by way of a civil suit against the decision of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari determining a dispute raised in regard to the validity of the election of the Committee of Management at which the respondent was elected as the Manager of the institution. We fail to see how this decision supports the petitioners. If anything the decision proceeds on the assumption that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was authorised to decide at the administrative level a dispute with regard to the management of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 8. The next case cited, viz, 1980 U.P. Local Bodies & Educational cases page 1953 is equally unhelpful. There the question was whether the Deputy Director of Education had power to determine a dispute with regard to the constitution of the Committee of Management of an institution Governed by the Intermediate Education Act. 8. The next case cited, viz, 1980 U.P. Local Bodies & Educational cases page 1953 is equally unhelpful. There the question was whether the Deputy Director of Education had power to determine a dispute with regard to the constitution of the Committee of Management of an institution Governed by the Intermediate Education Act. The questions raised before the Full Bench arose in the context of the Intermediate Education Act including Sections 15, 16 - A and 16 - D of the said Act. The scheme of the said enactment is materially different from that of the U.P. Basic Education Act. 9. Learned counsel also made an attempt to challenge the decision of the Assistant Director of Education dated 13.2.87. Annexure S.K. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. On merits. It was urged that the decision of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the election held on 15.12.85 at which the petitioners were elected suffered from any illegality was clearly unsustainable on the facts of the present case. We do not propose to make any comment on the legality or otherwise of the elections held on 15.12.85 as, in our opinion, the decision of the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) can be challenged by way of a civil suit. In view of the facts of the present case, we think, a civil suit would be a more appropriate remedy for the determination of these issues. 10. the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.