JUDGMENT 1. The present dispute relates to an educational institution which was formerly a Junior High School but was upgraded to a High School in 1990. This institute is run by a Society known as Shiksha Samiti, Basuchak, Balia. 2. In 1980, elections for the Committee of Management of the institution were held and respondent no. 3 Vikarma Singh was elected as Manager, and petitioner No. 2 Lalji Singh as Secretary. It is alleged that on 51086 a no confidence motion was passed against Vikarma Singh and thereafter Lalji Singh was elected Manager and his signature was attested. A dispute was raised regarding the list of members of the Society before the Assistant Registrar who held on 9187 that the list submitted by the petitioner was correct. Vikarma Singh filed writ petition No. 6268 of 1987 against the order dated 9187 and the said order was stayed by this court. After obtaining the ex parte order Vikarma Singh served it on the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ghazipur who attested the signature of Vikarma Singh without issuing notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition no. 9357 of 1987 in this court, and both petitions were disposed off by a common judgment of this Court on 1191987. True copy of the said judgment is Annexure1 to this petition. 3. This judgment dated 11987 was produced before the Assistant Registrar who after hearing both parties passed an order dated 291088 directing fresh elections of the Committee of Management from among persons who were members of the Society in 196768. True copy of the order dated 291088 is Annexure CA14 to the counter affidavit. Against this order writ petition No. 21244 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner but it was dismissed as not pressed on 27789 vide Annexure2 to the writ petition. 4. After upgradation as a High School in 1990 a Scheme of Administration came into force. The petitioner's allegation in para 16 of the writ petition is that on the coming into force of the Scheme of Administration it was incumbent on the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who was functioning as Manager of the institution, to have held elections in accordance with the new scheme, but instead respondent No. 3 obtained an order from the Education Minister, U.P. Govt. dated 14991 on the basis of which the impugned order dated 31191 (Annexure6) to the petition) has been passed by respondent no. 1 for holding elections to the Committee of Management of the institution in accordance with the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 291088. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been filed and I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In para 5 of the counter affidavit it is denied that any no confidence motion was passed against Vikarma Singh. The other allegations in the petition are also denied. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that election to the committee of management have to be held in accordance with the new Scheme of Administration which came into force after the upgradation, and not on the basis of the order dated 291088. 6. It may be noticed that the order of the prescribed authority dated 291088 (Annexure CA14) was passed after hearing both parties, and this order became final as the writ petition filed against it was withdrawn A perusal of the said order dated 291088 shows that the prescribed authority considered the version of both sides in great detail and found that the list of members submitted by Vikarma Singh was genuine, while that submitted by Lalji Singh was fake. This order dated 191088 has, become final between the parties, and hence the election of the office bears of the Society has to be held on the basis of the list of members of the Society found to be genuine in this order. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the old membership of the Society should be ignored as soon as the scheme of administration comes into force has now to be considered. It must be remembered that the Society is different from the committee of management. The society consists of members whose names are recorded under the Societies Registration Act. The list of members of the Society cannot be regulated by the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Act or the Scheme framed thereunder. 8. It is true that the committee of management has to be constituted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, as held in Committee of Management v. Regional Deputy Director, 1988 ALJ 831. The list of members of the Society cannot be regulated by the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Act or the Scheme framed thereunder. 8. It is true that the committee of management has to be constituted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, as held in Committee of Management v. Regional Deputy Director, 1988 ALJ 831. Hence each Scheme of Administration has to be examined carefully to ascertain how the committee of management is to be constituted in a particular institution. In the institution in question the Scheme of Administration has been annexed as Annexure3 to the writ petition. A perusal of this scheme shows that there is a general body of the institution (Sadharan Sabha) referred to in para 4, and there is a committee of Management referred to in para 5 which is constituted in accordance with para 6. Para 6 states that the committee of management will have 18 members, 12 of whom will be elected by the general body, 3 will be nominated, and the remaining 3 will be the Principal and 2 teachers. Para 6(2) states that the general body will also elect office bearers of the committee of management. 9. It must be clarified that the general body of the institution as mentioned in para 4 of the scheme of Administration is from the members of the Society. The latter are defined in Sec. 15 of the Societies Registration Act. The Committee of Management of the institution is not elected by the members of the Society but by the general body (Sadharan Sabha) mentioned in para 4 of the Scheme of Administration mentions who will be the members of the general body of the institution. Paragraph 7 mentions the Procedure of becoming a member, and it clearly provides that the committee of management can refuse to enroll a person as a member. Thus there is no absolute right in anyone to become a member of the general body of the institution by merely making an application and paying the requisite fees. The Committee of Management can reject such an application in its discretion. 10. The question therefore which arises is as to which will he the first committee of management on the coming into force of the scheme of administration (since such committee can refuse to enroll new members). The Committee of Management can reject such an application in its discretion. 10. The question therefore which arises is as to which will he the first committee of management on the coming into force of the scheme of administration (since such committee can refuse to enroll new members). There is no mention in express terms in the scheme of administration as to which will be the first committee of management, and hence logically it has to be inferred that the first committee of management will be the one which existed before the scheme of Administration came into force. 11. A perusal of para 13 of the counteraffidavit shows that ever since the establishment of the institution in 1967 it is the committee of management of which Vikarma Singh was Manager which was the valid committee of the institution. Only for a short period between 9187 to 7587 the signature of Lalji Singh as Manager was attested by the District Inspector of Schools due to the interim order of this Court, but thereafter on 8587 the signature of Vikarma Singh was again attested. Thus, except for a short interval between 9187 to 7587 the committee of management of which Vikarma Singh was the Manager was in control of the institution throughout and this was recognised by the authorities. This is also borne out by the affidavits referred to in para 5(f) of the counteraffidavit. It is evident from the record that Lalji Singh wanted to capture the institution by setting up a fake membership list of the Society, but by the order of the Prescribed authority dated 291088 (which became final) the list of Lalji Singh was found to be bogus. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the valid committee of management which existed before the coming into force of the Scheme of administration was the committee of which Vikarma Singh was Manager. Consequently, it is for this committee to decide who will be the members of the general body of the institution, and for this purpose do the needful in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 7 of the scheme of Administration. Consequently, it is for this committee to decide who will be the members of the general body of the institution, and for this purpose do the needful in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 7 of the scheme of Administration. This Committee (of which Vikarma Singh is Manager) will do the needful in this connection so that the general body of the institution (described in para 4 of the Scheme of Administration) is constituted within a week from today, and thereafter elections to the committee of management must be held within one month of such constitution. 12. In view of the above discussion, I direct that the ejections to the committee of management of the institution will be held in accordance with this judgment and not in accordance with the impugned order dated 31091 within three months. The writ petition indisposed off accordingly No order as to costs. (Order accordingly.)