JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226'of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner no. lis the 'Committee of Management- and the petitioner no. 2 claims himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Agra, dated 18th October, 1988, by which the signature Of Sri Govardhan Singh as President of the Committee of Management, and Sri Rajan Singh as Manager of the institution had been recognised. The case of the petitioners is that the last elections of the Committee of Management were held on 18th January, 1987. An intimation of the said elections was given to the District Basic Education Officer, who recognised the petitioner no 2, Sri Prabhu Lal Pathak, as the Manager of the institution. Consequent his further case is that after the District Basic Education Officer having recognised the petitioner, the impugned order could not have been passed by him 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Officer), in paragraph 8, it has been stated that after examining the various records, he came to the conclusion that, in fact, the election of the Committee, of Management could not have taken place in 1987 and could have only taken place in 1988 and, as such, he recognised the signatures of respondent nos 2 and 3 in pursuance of the elections which were held in 1988. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that once the signatures of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been recognised, it is not open to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into the questions of facts involved in the present case and the remedy available to the petitioners is to file a civil suit to establish his own rights. In The Committee of Management v. The District Inspector of Schools. Meerut, 1978 AWC 124 a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to go into this question in regard to the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. In The Committee of Management v. The District Inspector of Schools. Meerut, 1978 AWC 124 a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to go into this question in regard to the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The Bench, after considering the various provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act as well as the provisions of the High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 came to the conclusion that the District Inspector of Schools in the case of Intermediate Colleges have only 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 has a right to file a suit against the rival claimants for adjudication of his rights either as office bearer or as members of the Committee of Management. 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 alter his decision and will recognise that party in whose favour the decision has been taken judicially 5. The dispute in regard to the management in the present case relates to a Junior High School. The U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 relates to education in the Junior High Schools. The U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 enjoins upon the State Government to pay salary to the teachers working in the Junior High Schools. 6. We have examined the U. P. Basic Education Act. There is no provision by virtue of which the District Basic Education Officer has been authorised to determine the question as to the validity of an election for the purpose of running an institution. 6. We have examined the U. P. Basic Education Act. There is no provision by virtue of which the District Basic Education Officer has been authorised to determine the question as to the validity of an election for the purpose of running an institution. In view of the fact that the payment of salary to the teachers and other employees of a Junior High School has to be made by the State Government and also in view of the fact that there are certain provisions of the U. P. Basic Education Act which govern the Junior High Schools, it is necessary that the District Basic Education Officer recognises one or the other Managing Committee of the College concerned in order to enable him to conduct the day-to-day administration in regard' to the said Junior High School. In the circumstances, the officer is entitled to determine as to which particular Managing Committee he would recognise for the purpose of carrying on the day-to-day administration of the Junior High School. The impugned order, which has been challenged in the present petition, only recognised the respondent nos 2 and 3 as President and Manager of the institution it is purely an administrative order. It is subject to determination of the rights of the parties by a competent court of law. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, the remedy available to the petitioner is to get his rights adjudicated upon by a competent Civil Court. After the said adjudication, the officer shall give effect to the decision of the Court. So far as this Court is concerned, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, consequently, there is no force in this petition. It is; accordingly, dismissed. The interim order dated 31st October, 1988, is hereby vacated Petition dismissed.