S. SRIVASTAVA, J. Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College, Amroha, District Moradabad is an educational institution covered under the provisions of Section 16-FF of the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education Act which receives grant-in-aid from the State Government and which is governed by the provisions contained in Payment of Salaries Act (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971 ). 2. The Scheme of Administration for running and managing the aforesaid institu tion was approved by the Deputy Director of Education on 27. 7. 1995. In an election for constituting a Committee of Manage ment held on 10. 9. 1995, a Committee of Management with Syed Tajdar Husain was elected which was granted recognition by District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 14. 2. 1996. As provided under Clause 9 (Kha) of the approved Scheme of Ad ministration, the tenure of a Committee of Management had to be for a period of three years only and in case within six months thereafter a new committee was not got elected the Deputy Director of Education was authorised to nominate one of the office bearers of the out-going committee of management to act as a Prabandh Sanchalak who was to get the election held at the earliest and hand over the charge to and to install a new Committee of Manage ment in office. 3. It may be noticed that on 10th August, 1993, the Deputy Director of Education had issued a show cause notice calling upon the Manager Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College to explain as to why in-spite of the directions contained in the let ters issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 1. 5. 1993 and 18. 6. 1993, no election for constituting a committee of management had been held and as to why a Prabandh Sanchalak be not appointed. It was subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid letter that the State Government had taken a decision to declare the institu tion in question to be a minority institution for the purposes of Section 16-FF of the Act vide the order dated 22. 4. 1994 and it was only thereafter that the Scheme of Ad ministration for the institution in question with the aforesaid stipulations relating to the constituting of a Committee of Manage ment was approved on 27. 7. 1995. 4. 1994 and it was only thereafter that the Scheme of Ad ministration for the institution in question with the aforesaid stipulations relating to the constituting of a Committee of Manage ment was approved on 27. 7. 1995. Although the District Inspector of Schools had granted recognition to the newly elected Committee of Management on 10. 9. 1995 vide his order dated 14. 2. 1996, the Deputy Director of Education (Basic) vide the order dated 6th March, 1996 proceeding on the assumption that the election proposed vide the letter of the Manager dated 7. 7. 1993 had not been held within a period of three years and six months, appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak purporting to act exer cising the jurisdiction envisaged under the amended clause (9) of the approved scheme of administration indicating that the Prabandh Sanchalak will stand vested with the powers and authority of a Committee of Management. 4. Thereafter the Manager Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College moved an ap plication before the Deputy Director of Education informing him that the election had already been held on 10. 9. 1995 which had been recognised by the District Inspec tor of Schools also and in the circumstances, the order appointing the Prabandh Sanchalak be cancelled. The said applica tion is claimed to be pending without any orders being passed thereon. 4-A. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10869 of 1996 have approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order dated 6. 3. 1996 passed by the Deputy Direc tor of Education and further seeking a direction restraining the said authority from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner Committee of Management. 5. It appears from the record that sub sequent to the passing of the order dated 6. 3. 1996, whereunder Sri Jwala Prasad Pandey retired District Basic Education Officer had been appointed as Prabandh Sanchalak, the said Prabandh Sanchalak had shown his inability to continue as such where after vide the order dated 21. 5. 1996, the Regional Deputy Director of Education had ap pointed Syed Simar Mohammad Naqvi as the Prabandh Sanchalak but he having resigned vide the order dated 6. 7. 5. 1996, the Regional Deputy Director of Education had ap pointed Syed Simar Mohammad Naqvi as the Prabandh Sanchalak but he having resigned vide the order dated 6. 7. 1996 ap pointed Syed Mohammad Saddiq as a Prabandh Sanchalak requiring him to get the election held for constituting a Commit tee of Management which should be in stalled in the office providing further that Prabandh Sanchalak shall exercise all the rights vesting in a Committee of Manage ment. 6. The petitioners of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10869 of 1996 have filed the other Writ Petition No. 22574 of 1996 pray ing for the quashing of the order dated 6. 7. 1996 passed by the Deputy Director of Education besides claiming another relief seeking to restrain the respondents includ ing the newly appointed Prabandh Sanchalak from interfering in the running and managing the affairs of the Institution by the petitioners. 7. Considering the facts and cir cumstances brought on record and the na ture of the controversy raised in both the writ petitions it was found appropriate to hear both the writ petitions together. Both the writ petitions were accordingly heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. 9. It is not disputed that prior to the enforcement of the scheme of administra tion approved for running and managing the institution, the terms of the office bearers and the members of the Committee of management and other ex-officio mem bers had been fixed for a period of three years from the date they were elected provided however, that the term of the of fice bearers was to be deemed to have con tinued till the successors had been elected. It has further not been disputed that the last election for electing the committee of management had taken place in the year 1991 with Sri Tajdar Husain as its Manager and this Committee of Management was duly recognised by the District Inspector of Schools. 10. The Institution in question was declared as a minority institution governed by the provisions of Section 16-FF on 22. 4. 10. The Institution in question was declared as a minority institution governed by the provisions of Section 16-FF on 22. 4. 1994 and the scheme of administration with the stipulations contained in Clause 9 (Kha) in regard to the tenure of the office of the Committee of Management and the provision for appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak was approved on 27. 7. 1995. The aforesaid provisions authorised the Regional Deputy Director of Education to appoint the office bearer of the outgoing Committee of Management to be a Prabandh Sanchalak. The fresh elections were held on 10. 9. 1996 and had been duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 14. 2. 1996. 11. The question which arises for con sideration, therefore, is as to whether the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the aforesaid circumstances, could appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak purporting to exer cise his jurisdiction envisaged under Clause 9 (Kha) of the Scheme of Administration approved for the college and further can such a Prabandh Sanchalak be a person other than the person as provided for under the aforesaid provision? 12. In its decision in the case of Krishna Dutt Bajpai v. District Inspector of Schools, Rai Bareli reported in 1985 UP LBEC 551, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, it was indicated taking into consideration the observations of a Full Bench in its decision in the case of Aley Ahmad Abidi v. District Inspector of Schools, reported in 1976 AWC 731 that a scheme of administra tion cannot be regarded as a piece of subor dinate legislation like the Rules, Regula tions, Statutes and Ordinances which an Act empowers the Government or the statutory bodies under the Act to make or frame, observing further that a writ petition would not therefore, lie merely for enforcing the scheme of administration, though the petitioner may seek his remedy through a civil suit. 13. However, any State action in respect of an educational institution run by a society or a body of persons as con templated under the approved scheme of administration is a matter of considerable importance as it divests the society or the body of persons of the rights to manage the institution established by it and to that ex tent interferes with institutional rights. It may be a temporary or partial deprivation of the rights to run and manage the institution. It may be a temporary or partial deprivation of the rights to run and manage the institution. The supersession of the management ef fected by the appointment of a Prabandh Sanchalak with the power and authorities as done in the present case is of far reaching consequences. It necessarily involves a con flict between the institutional interest on the one hand and the public interest on the other which is sought to be served by the supersession of the Committee of Manage ment. 14. It is therefore, obvious that there always exists the imperative need to balance the two requirements. It is however, neces sary to emphasise that the affairs of an educational institution must be conducted in accordance with the law and it is of utmost importance that an atmosphere con ducive to the development of the education is ensured and maintained which in fact is always the object that an institution receiv ing grants- in-aid from the State is supposed to serve. 15. In its decision in the case of Com mittee of Management Janta Inter College Muzaffar Nagar and others v. Deputy Director of Education and others, (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36146 of 1995, decided on 26th August, 1996) this Court had clarified that the stipulation in the approved scheme of administration to the effect that the management of the institution would be taken over by a person appointed as Prabandh Sanchalak in the event of failure to constitute a Committee of Management within a stipulated period is suggestive of the fact that the Committee would not auto matically cease to be functional indicating further that it would continue to be func tional until replaced by a Prabandh Sanchalak. 16. It seems to me that the provisions contained in the Scheme of Administration have to be interpreted in a pragmatic man ner and the construction should be a purposeful construction to effectuate the ob ject and purpose sought to be achieved under the scheme. An state of vacuum has to be avoided in a case where either on account of default of the outgoing Committee of Management or on account of the default on the part of the Regional Deputy Director of Education in appointing a Prabandh Sanchalak a new Committee of Manage ment is not elected. An state of vacuum has to be avoided in a case where either on account of default of the outgoing Committee of Management or on account of the default on the part of the Regional Deputy Director of Education in appointing a Prabandh Sanchalak a new Committee of Manage ment is not elected. In that event unless the outgoing Committee of Management is not deemed to be functional till the appoint ment of the Prabandh Sanchalak, a state of vacuum will come into existance which will not be either in the interest of the institu tion or in the public interest. I, therefore,, see no reason to take a departure from the view in this regard expressed in the aforesaid decision in the case of Committee of Management, Janta Inter College (supra ). In the circumstances, therefore, the election held by the Committee of Management recognised by the District Inspector of Schools which may be termed as an out going Committee of Management which election had been held prior to the appoint ment of a Prabandh Sanchalak if found to have been held in accordance with law in a meeting of the general body of the institu tion lawfully held in the sense that it was properly convened, properly constituted and properly conducted deserves recogni tion for the administrative purposes. 17. It may further be noticed that while passing the impugned order, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has expressly indicated that he was exercising the jurisdic tion envisaged under such clause 9 (Kha) of the approved scheme of administration. If the Regional Deputy Director of Education himself traced the source of his authority to the aforesaid provisions, he ought to have remained confined within the limits of that authority. The jurisdiction envisaged under the aforesaid provision did not empower the Regional Deputy Director of Education to appoint any person other than of the category specified in the aforesaid provision to be a Prabandh Sanchalak. In the present case, it has not been disputed that the person appointed as Prabandhan Sanchalak under the impugned order is a person who doe not fall within the category of persons as provided for in paragraph 9 (Kha) of the approved Scheme of Administration. 18. However, I find that the recogni tion granted by the District Inspector of Schools under his order dated 14. 2. 18. However, I find that the recogni tion granted by the District Inspector of Schools under his order dated 14. 2. 1996 to the Committee of Management claimed to have been elected on 10. 9. 1995 was a condi tional recognition. A perusal of the aforesaid order further indicates that the District Inspector of Schools had granted recognition on a provisional basis simply acting on the report submitted by the elec tion officer without applying his mind to the validity of the election proceedings. 19. Considering the facts and cir cumstances brought on record and my con clusions indicated hereinabove, the writ petitions succeed in part and the impugned orders dated 8. 3. 1996 and 6. 7. 1996 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Educa tion, the respondent No. 1 are quashed with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, the respondent No. 2 requiring him to pass a final order in the matter relating to the grant of recognition of the Com mittee of Management claimed to have been elected on 10. 9. 1996. In the light of the observations made hereinabove. 20. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Petitions partly allowed. .