O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 28. 5. 1998, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, passed by Regional Joint Director of education (for short r. J. D. E. ) Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, recognising the Committee of management of Satya Deo Rai--respondent No. 3 who claims himself to be the Manager, has been challenged and it is prayed that the said order be quashed and the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the affairs of the Management of Swatantra Bharat Inter college. Arnila, district Mau run by the petitioners Committee of Management, of which shambhu Nath-petitioner No. 2 is the Manager. ( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri S. K. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Bhushan. learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3--Satya Deo Rai as well as learned standing counsel. ( 3 ) THERE is a recognised and aided educational institution run in the name of Swatantra Bharat inter College, Amila. district Mau. The institution is governed and managed by a scheme of administration. Last elections to constitute the Committee of Management were held admittedly on 5. 2. 1995 in which Raj Kumar Ojha and Satya Deo Rai were respectively elected as President and Manager. Shambhu Nath, petitioner No. 2 was elected as Assistant Manager. Signatures of satya Deo Rai, respondent No. 3 were duty attested by the District Inspector of Schools (for short d. I. O. S. ) on 23. 2. 95. Since then Satya Deo Rai has been in the effective control of the affairs of the institution, which is being managed by him. The term of the Committee of management under the scheme of administration is 3 years and by allowing one months grace period for holding the elections, the term of the office bearers of the old committee of management was to expire on 4. 3. 1998. The election schedule for constituting a new committee of management was notified on 27. 2. 1998 in daival local newspaper and the list of 215 members of the general body was also published. The election was to take place on 5. 3. 1998. 3. 1998. The election schedule for constituting a new committee of management was notified on 27. 2. 1998 in daival local newspaper and the list of 215 members of the general body was also published. The election was to take place on 5. 3. 1998. Amazingly enough, during the election process which was notified by Satya Deo Rai, erstwhile manager, the D. I. O. S. attested the signatures of Shambhu Nath, petitioner No. 2 on 4. 3. 1998, meanting thereby the new committee of management, of which he claims himself to be the manager, came to be recognised. Certain complaints were made to the R. J. D. E. who is the immediate superior officer to the D. I. O. S. He called for the report of the D. I. O. S. In the matter but it was not received and consequently, respondent No. 1 R. J. D. E. by invoking his supervisory administrative powers, stayed the operation of the attestation of the signatures of Shambhu Nath. made by D. I. O. S. on 4. 3. 1998. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 7. 4. 98 of the R. J. D. E. , the present petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 14338 of 1998, which was decided by this Court on 27. 4. 1998. It was directed that the R. J. D. E. shall pass appropriate speaking orders after hearing both the contesting parties. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 Shambhu Nath made a representation on 12. 5. 1998 before the R. J. D. E.-respondent No. 1 who in his turn, considered the respective contentions of the opposing parties and in compliance with the order dated 27. 4. 1998, passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 14338 of 1998. has passed the impugned order, dated 28. 5. 98. Annexure-10, coming to the conclusion that the alleged elections set up by Shambhu nath petitioner No. 2 were illegal and that the election to constitute a new committee of management held on 5. 3. 1998 of which Satya Deo Rai-respondent No. 3 is the Manager was valid one and Satya Deo Rai is in effective control of the affairs of the institution : his signatures are liable to be attested and consequently the D. I. O. S. . In compliance of the impugned order passed by the R. J. D. E. , attested the signatures of Satya Deo Rai. respondent No. 3. In compliance of the impugned order passed by the R. J. D. E. , attested the signatures of Satya Deo Rai. respondent No. 3. ( 4 ) SRI S. K. Singh urged that the R. J. D. E. respondent No. 1 has overstepped his Jurisdiction, inasmuch as, he had no right to decide the question of validity or otherwise of the elections, particularly, keeping in view the fact that no reference under Section 16a (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made by the D. I. O. S. and in the absence of such a reference the R. J. D. E. had no jurisdiction or authority to decide the question of validity or a particular election and to record finding as to which of the committee of management was in effective control of the affairs of the institution. All these submissions have been repelled by Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 as well as learned standing counsel. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that in the earlier election, which was held on 5. 2. 1995. respondent No. 3 was elected as Manager and he continued to work as such. It was he, who was under the law authorised to conduct the elections to constitute new committee of management within the specified period of 3 years and one month. It was for this reason that before expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, Satya Deo Rai, Initiated the election process and on 27. 2. 1998 had published a list of newly enrolled members, which comprised of 30 life members and 185 ordinary members, in total 215 members. Shambhu Nath, petitioner No. 2 obviously had no right or authority to conduct fresh elections during the subsistence of original committee of management whose term was yet to expire. In order to overcome this difficulty, Shambhu Nath has taken recourse to three distinct facts-firstly that Ram Kumar OJha who was elected as president in the election held on 5. 2. 1995 had resigned on 28. 2. 1997 and in his place, Ram kumar Yadav was substituted as President ; that Satya Deo Rai himself resigned from the post of manager on 31. 2. 1997 and in his place he (Shambhu Nath) who was Assistant Manager came to function as Manager. 2. 1995 had resigned on 28. 2. 1997 and in his place, Ram kumar Yadav was substituted as President ; that Satya Deo Rai himself resigned from the post of manager on 31. 2. 1997 and in his place he (Shambhu Nath) who was Assistant Manager came to function as Manager. A totally incongruous plea has also been taken that a no-confidence motion was passed against Sri Satya Deo Rai on 30. 1. 98 and, therefore, on 4. 3. 1998, a fresh election of the committee of management was held to constitute the new committee of management in which it is alleged Shambhu Nath was elected as Manager. The R. J. D. E. , after scrutiny of ail the above facts, has come to the conclusion that the case of Shambhu Nath is beyond the realm of reality. He has twisted the facts and has based his claim of having been elected as Manager of the Committee of Management on totally false grounds. The election of Shambhu Nath has been held to be bogus. The finding of fact recorded by the R. J. D. E. cannot be scrutinised or sifted by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Nevertheless, after taking into consideration the overall view of the material available on record, I am also in agreement with R. J. D. E. that Shambhu Nath was an usurper of the office of manager of the Committee of Management and that the D. I. O. S. has, in a hot haste and without verifying the correct facts, attested his signatures on 4. 3. 1998 ignoring the fact that 5. 3. 1998 was the date fixed for election as notified by Satya Deo Rai. The R. J. D. E. has rightly set aside the order dated 4. 3. 98 passed by the D. I. O. S. and has given a reasonable finding, which is justified from the facts on record that the Committee of Management of Satya Deo rai--respondent No. 3 was required to be recognised. ( 6 ) NOW the question is whether R. J. D. E. was empowered to pass the impugned order. Sri S. K. Singh. ( 6 ) NOW the question is whether R. J. D. E. was empowered to pass the impugned order. Sri S. K. Singh. learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that independent of provision of Section 16a (7) of the Act, R. J. D. E. has no jurisdiction or authority to determine incidentally the validity or otherwise of the committee of management or to record a finding as to which of the committee of management is in effective control of the affairs of the institution. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the oft-quoted decision of this Court in Committee of management, Lakhauri, Inter College, Lakhauri Distt. Moradabad and another v. D. D. E. XIIth region, Moradabad and others, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 784 . !t is true that no appeal or revision against the order passed by the D. I. O. S. lies to the R. J. D. E. It is also an admitted fact that in the instant case no reference under Section 16a (7) of the Act was made to the R. J. D. E. ( 7 ) IT is well-established that the order passed by the D. I. O. S. attesting the signatures of the manager, is purely an administrative decision, which he has to take as a matter of necessity. This aspect of the matter has been considered in a number of decisions of this Court. To quote a few, reference may be made to Committee of Management S. A. V. Inter College v. D. I. O. S. , Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 12725 of 1975, decided on 24. 11. 1997, by a Division Bench of this court ; Committee of Management and another v. D. I. O. S. Meerut and another, 1978 AWC 124 ; Committee of Management, Vaidik Higher Secondary School Faizptir Ninana and another v. D. I. O. S. , Meerut and another, (1993) 2 UPLBEC 934 and Gauri Shankar Rai and others v. Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey. D. I. O. S. , Ballia and others, 1984 UPLBEC 166. In all these cases, it has been held that the D. I. O. S. Is duty bound to recognise the Committee of Management and to attest the signatures of the Manager after making an administrative enquiry and without entering into the validity or otherwise of the election of the new Committee of Management and its office bearers. In all these cases, it has been held that the D. I. O. S. Is duty bound to recognise the Committee of Management and to attest the signatures of the Manager after making an administrative enquiry and without entering into the validity or otherwise of the election of the new Committee of Management and its office bearers. The D. I. O. S. has to collaborate with the various Committees of Management for administrative purposes in order to perform his various statutory duties, as adumbrated in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 and U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. The power of the D. T. O. S. to recognise the committee of management and to attest the signatures of the Manager, which is necessarily done for administrative purposes cannot be whittled down merely because a dispute has been raised about the validity of the election or otherwise by the rival Committees of Management. If the D. I. O. S. is permitted to show an apathy in the matter and his inaction in discharging the essential administrative function is condoned, it would lead to disastrous result. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that the R. J. D. E. Is the authority which is superior to the d. I. O. S. . The latter is subordinate to the former. The R. J. D. E. exercises supervisory jurisdiction over all the administrative acts of the D. I. O. S. Even in the exercise of administrative powers, there is a hierarchy of officers. If a subordinate officer commits a mistake or is obdurate enough to take absurd administrative decisions, in that event, supervising officer cannot be expected to shut his eyes to perpetuate a wrong administrative decision taken by a subordinate officer. The very fact that the R. J. D. E. Is superior in hierarchy implies that he has power and authority to scrutinise, correct and rectify wrong administrative orders of his subordinates including the d. I. O. S. This aspect of the matter came to be considered in Shandar Hussain v. Dy. Director of education XII, Region Moradabad and others. 1995 ACJ 1241 , in which the power of the D. D. E. to test the correctness or otherwise of the administrative orders of the D. I. O. S. has been upheld by this Court. Director of education XII, Region Moradabad and others. 1995 ACJ 1241 , in which the power of the D. D. E. to test the correctness or otherwise of the administrative orders of the D. I. O. S. has been upheld by this Court. The decision in Shandar Hussains case (supra), is still intact and is not affected by the decision in Lakhauri Inter College case (supra ). Shandar Hussains case lays down a workable principle of administrative convenience. The rationale of this decision allows the things to get going. This case also came to be considered before a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Tagore Uchchattar Madhyamik, Vidhyalaya Dilawarganj farrukhabad v. D. I. O. S. , Farrukhabad and others, (1998) (1) UPLBEC 429, in which though shandar Hussains case was distinguished on facts, but it was impliedly approved. ( 9 ) THIS aspect of the matter has been dealt with by this Court in a number of decisions. A particular reference may be made to the decision in Committee of Management J. V. Inter college, Rajpur. Distt. Saharanpur and others v. Dy. Director of Education (Madhyamik! saharanpur Region and others. Civil Misc. Writ No. 3034 of 1998, decided on 17. 8. 1998. ( 10 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. The R. J. D. E. , respondent No. 1 in the present case was required to decide the matter under the order of this Court dated 27. 4. 1998 passed in Writ petition No. 14338 of 1998. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 was duty bound to take a decision in the matter. He derived authority under the orders of this Court on the earlier writ petition of the present petitioners. Now it would be too genteel to discourse upon the jurisdiction and the authority of the R. J. D. E. to assert that the Impugned order is illegal. ( 11 ) IN conclusion. I find that the R. J. D. E.--respondent No. 1, in passing the impugned order dated 28. 5. 1998, Annexure-10 to the writ petition has taken the overall correct and judicious view in recognising the committee of management, newly constituted, in pursuance of the election held on 5. 3. 1998 of which Satya Deo Rai, respondent No. 3 is Manager. In the circumstances of the case, no interference with the Impugned order is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. 1998 of which Satya Deo Rai, respondent No. 3 is Manager. In the circumstances of the case, no interference with the Impugned order is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Though the petitioner No. 2 has no case, there is nothing to prevent him to approach the appropriate civil court to establish the legality or otherwise, of the election in which he was allegedly elected as Manager. ( 12 ) IN the conspectus of the above facts, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. .