ORDER : 1. Hari Baba Janta Inter - College Gawan, District Budaun, is an Intermediate College recognised as such under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (In short the Act) and administered by its own scheme of administration as approved under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In the scheme of administration is enshrined the provision for constitution of a Committee of Management to manage the affairs of the College in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the regulations framed thereunder. Paragraph 6 of the scheme of administration postulates that the term of the office-bearers and elected members of the Committee, would be three years with strings attached that the term of each of the office - bearers of the Committee of Management would prolong till elections of its successor provided that such term would not extend beyond two months. It is further provided therein that if the office bearers of Committee of Management fail to get the new Committee of Management constituted within two months next after the expiration of the three years terms of the Committee of Management, then the procedure prescribed for election and construction of the Committee of Management shall be followed. The procedure for election of the Committee of Management is laid down in para 5 of the scheme. The provisions in this regard, embodied in the scheme of administration as amended by the Regional Deputy Director of Education vide letter dated 28-1-1985 in so far as they are relevant, are abstracted below for ready reference. The procedure for election of the Committee of Management is laid down in para 5 of the scheme. The provisions in this regard, embodied in the scheme of administration as amended by the Regional Deputy Director of Education vide letter dated 28-1-1985 in so far as they are relevant, are abstracted below for ready reference. ^^¼5½--------------lfefr dk v/;{k ,oa ÁcU/kd lkewfgd :i ls lfefr dk dk;kZy; lekIr gksus ds nks ekg iwoZ lk/kkj.k lHkk dh cSBd cqyk;sxs o pquko lEcU/kh dk;Z ÁkjEHk djsxsa] ;fn os ,slk ugha djrs rks ckjk lnL;ksa dh fyf[kr ekax ij v/;{k lk/kkj.k lHkk dh cSBd vo'; cqyk;sxk rFkk Á'kklu ;kstuk esa fn, x;s Ákfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj cqyk;sxk rFkk Á'kklu ;kstuk esa fn, x;s Ákfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj pquko djkdj uo&fuokZfpr ,oa xfBr lfefr dh lwph v/;{k ,oa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ls ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd ,oa lEHkkxh; f'k{kk mi&funs'kd dks Hkst nh tkosxhA ;fn v/;{k vkSj ÁcU/kd lfefr ds pquko lEcU/kh dk;Zokgh ugha djrs gS rks lHkk ds ¼,dfrgkbZ½ 1@3 lnL;ksa ds fyf[kr ekax ij ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dks iw.kZ vf/kdkj gksxk fd og ftyk vf/kdkjh ds lg;ksx ls pquko lEiUu djk;s rFkk pquko mijkUr uo&pfur ,oa xfBr lfefr dks ekU;rk Ánku djs] cjkcj dh n'kk esa v/;{k dks fu.kkZ;d er nsus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA ;fn lHkk ds 1@3 lnL; Hkh ubZ lfefr ds pquko ,oa xBu dh ekax ugha djrs gS rks fujh{kd dks rhu o"kZ nks ekl ckn iqjkuh lfefr dh Hkax djus ,oa ubZ lfefr dk Á'kklu ;kstuk esa fn, x;s Ákfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj xBu djkus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gksxkA ¼6½------------inkf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk in lnL;ksa ls fuEu lnL;ksa dk dk;Zdky muds pqus tkus ds fnukad ls rhu o"kZ dk gksxk] fdUrq ÁfrcU/k ;g gS fd ÁR;sd inkf/kdkjh dk dk;Zdky mlds mRrjkf/kdkjh ds pqus tkus rd ekuk tk;sxk fdUrq ;g vof/k nks ekg ls vf/kd dh ugha gksxhA ;fn nks ekl ds Hkhrj uohu lfefr dk xBu inkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ugha djk;k tkrk gS rks uohu lfefr ds fuokZpu xfBr djkus gsrq lfefr ds pquko dh ÁfØ;k esa fn, x;s micU/k ykxw gksxsA** 2. It is evident that if one third members of the general body of the society also fail to set forth a written demand to the District Inspector of Schools for purposes of election and constitution of the new Committee of Management, in that eventuality, the District Inspector of Schools will have power to dissolve the Committee of Management and embark upon measures to have a new committee constituted in accordance with the scheme of administration. 3. Admittedly, the term of the old Committee of Management expired on 11th January, 1995. The process of election for constituting a new Committee had been initiated earlier vide notice published in Dainik Jagran on 13th December 1994 and according to the said schedule, 14.2.1995 was the date fixed for filing nominations, 20.2.1995 for scrutiny, 21.2.1995 for withdrawal and 1.3.1995 for polling. It seems, however, that the election could not be taken to a finality owing to the failure of the District Inspector of Schools to appoint the Election Officer as a result of whirl a fresh notification was issued on 24.2.1995 (Sic) embodying fresh schedule for election of a the Committee of Management. According to revised schedule. 24.4.1995 was the date fixed for nomination and scrutiny, 25.4.1995 for withdrawal of nominations and 28.4.1995 for election and on the basis of the election held according to the revised schedule; a new Committee of Management came into being. 4. The validity of the revised notification dated 24.2.1995 was Challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. (10288 Of 1995) inter-alia, on the ground that Adhyaksha and Manager of the outgoing Committee of Management had no authority to hold election after expiry of the period of three years and two months. The Court did not delve deep into the question on consideration before the District Inspector of Schools. In the ultimate analysis, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the directions that while disposing of the representation, the District. Inspector of Schools would satisfy that the election was held in accordance with law and within the stipulated period. The Court considered it unnecessary to mention that while considering the question of correctness and legality of the election, the District Inspector of Schools would not be without power to go over whether the election was held prima-facie, by observing the legal procedures and that a fictitious election was not held. The Court considered it unnecessary to mention that while considering the question of correctness and legality of the election, the District Inspector of Schools would not be without power to go over whether the election was held prima-facie, by observing the legal procedures and that a fictitious election was not held. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 19.4.1995 in terms of the above directions. 5. Thereafter by means of the impugned order dated 9.5.1995, the District Inspector of Schools approved of the Committee of Management constituted on the basis of election held on 28.4.1995. Recognition bestowed on the new Committee of Management by order dated 9.5.1995 is sought to be quashed by means of the present petition. 6. The question herein raised is whether the election held at the behest of the office bearers of out going Committee of Management after expiration of three years and two months was void and/or could it be validly recognised by the District Inspector of Schools. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the office bearers of the out going Committee of Management ceased to have any authority in law to seek election of the new Committee of Management after expiration of the period of three years and two months and the election could validly be held thereafter only by the District Inspector of Schools as contemplated under the scheme of administration. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent canvassed that since the process of election had already competed well within the stipulated period, though could not be taken to a finality, within the stipulated period and the District Inspector of schools instead of dissolving the old Committee of Management, permitted its office bearers to go ahead with the revised programme published on 24.2.1995, the Committee so constituted in the election held on 28.4.1995 pursuant to the said programme, cannot be fished out as being invalid. 7. Having bestowed my thoughtful, consideration to the submissions at the bar. 7. Having bestowed my thoughtful, consideration to the submissions at the bar. I am persuaded to the view that the election of the office bearers and the members of the Committee of Management held on 28.4.1995 cannot be relegated into being invalid merely because it was held after the stipulated period albeit according to an agenda dated 24.2.1995 published at the behest of the office bearers of the out going Committee of Management within the stipulated period of three years and two months. Upon a conjoint reading of Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the scheme of administration. I am inclined to take the view that the language employed therein does not necessarily connote for automatic cessation of the office bearers and elected members of Committee of Management on expiration of the term of three years and a further period of two months. Had it been the intendment, it would not have been stipulated that the District Inspector of Schools would have the power to dissolve the old Committee of Management and get a new Committee of Management constituted in accordance with the scheme of administration after expiry of the period of three years and two months. In my opinion, the office bearers and elected members of the Old Committee of Management are to continue to discharge their functions until they are replaced by a Prabandh Sanchalak in that there must at all times be a Committee of Management or for that purpose a Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the affairs of the College under the Act. A vacuum of void in this regard is not contemplated in the scheme of the Act, paragraph 6 of the Scheme of administration no doubt provides that the office bearers would continue for a maximum period of two months after expiry of their term of three years but this is not intended to be construed rigidly as a mandate inasmuch as further postulate is enshrined therein that if the elections are not held within the stipulated period, then the District Inspector of Schools will have power to dissolve the old Committee after expiry of three years and two months and get the new Committee constituted in accordance with the scheme. Reading both the provisions harmoniously and purposefully necessarily leads to an inference that unless and until the committee is dissolved by the District Inspector of Schools and the management is taken over by a Controller, the office bearers should continue at least for the purposes of holding election. Prescription of tenure or period in this regard should not be construed rigidly to the extent that the election held at the instance of the office bearers of the old Committee of Management beyond the stipulated period of three years and two months would be rendered invalid. Justice G.P. Singh on principles of statutory Interpretation, Fifth Edition 1992, P 244, has propounded the following principles. "Where a Statute imposes a public duty and lays down the manner in which and the time within which the duty shall be performed, injustice inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescription may be a relevant factor in holding such prescriptions only directory." 8. In Remington Rand of India vs. Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 224 , it has been held while construing Section 17 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that it is obligatory on the Government to publish an award but the provisions that it should be published within 30 days is not mandatory and an award published beyond 30 days is not invalid. 9. Privy Council in Montreal Street Railway vs. Normandin, AIR 1917 PC 142 , has stated the principles in the following words. "Then the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those who are entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice to hold, such provisions to be directory only." 10. In a recent case, Rajendra Singh vs. State of M.P. JT 1996 (7) SC 216 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under: "While examining complaints of violation of, statutory rules and conditions, it must be remembered that violation of each and every provision does not furnish a ground for the Court to interfere. The provision may be a directory one or a mandatory one. The provision may be a directory one or a mandatory one. In the case of directory provisions, substantial compliance would be enough. Unless it is established that violation of a directory provision has resulted in loss and/or prejudice to the party, no interference is warranted. Even in the case of violation of a mandatory provision, interference does not follow as a matter of course." 11. Keeping in mind, the principles stated above, I am of the considered view that the provisions contained in the scheme of administration providing for dissolution of the Committee of Management after expiration of 3 years and two months, in case an elected committee is, not constituted within that period are directory and in case, the officer bearers of old Committee of Management are allowed to conduct the elections, within a reasonable period, the election so held would not be invalid merely because it was held at the behest of the office bearers of out going Committee of Management beyond the stipulated period of their term. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner then invited my attention to the letter dated 22.4.1995 issued by the Regional Dy. Director of Education to the District Inspector of Schools containing directions for constitution of new Committee of Management in accordance with the directions of the High Court issued by judgment and order dated 19.4.1995. A perusal of the said letter would speak that the Regional Dy. Director of Education too had called upon the District Inspector of Schools to dissolve the Old Committee of Management and have the election held for constituting the new Committee of Management, but the kernel of the matter is that the election was allowed to be held on 28.4.1995 as schedule already notified and the old Committee of Management was not dissolved by the District Inspector of Schools. The directions contained in the letter dated 22.4.1995 in my opinion are incapable of invalidating the election dated 28.4.1995 in view of what I have stated supra. 13. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.