R. R. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri V. K. Shukla and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel representing Pratap Singh. Mahraj Singh and Pushpendra, the caveator/applicants at length. Perused the order impugned. Learned standing counsel has adopted the arguments raised by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel representing caveator/applicants. ( 2 ) I am of the view that the present writ petition deserves to be decided on admitted facts between the petitioners and caveator/ applicants without delineating detailed averments made in the writ petition. ( 3 ) INDISPUTABLY, election of the Committee of Management was held on 23. 11. 1998 for a term of 3 years which was subject to extension of six months by the Joint Director of Education. Three years term of Committee of Management came to an end on 23. 11. 2001. Taking the aforesaid calculation in mind, the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar, sent a letter to Joint director of Education recommending that since the term of office of Committee of Management has come to an end on 23. 11. 2001, therefore, Authorised Controller may be appointed under clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration approved by the Joint Director of Education within the meaning of sub-section (5) of Section 16a of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Indisputably, under sub-section (5) of Section 16a of the U. P, Intermediate Education Act, expression "director of Education" has been used but his powers are delegated to Joint Director of education. ( 4 ) THE thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present case is based on interpretation of Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. According to Sri Shukla, if aforesaid Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration is interpreted in letter and spirit, then the term of the Committee of Management would be 3 years 6 months. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if within 3 years and extended period of 6 months, the Joint Director of Education wants to appoint Authorised Controller, then he is to record reasons as to why 6 months period is being curtailed. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. K. Shukla, is vehemently opposed by Sri Shashi Nandan with equal force. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. K. Shukla, is vehemently opposed by Sri Shashi Nandan with equal force. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing Caveator/applicants that extension of 6 months period is not automatic. According to Sri Shashi Nandan, the term of Committee of Management is only 3 years. However, it can be extended for 6 months, provided the Joint Director of Education is objectively satisfied that for not holding election within 3 years by the elected Committee of management, there were inevitable circumstances which prevented the Committee of management to hold election within 3 years. The Joint Director of Education is to be further objectively satisfied that there is no complaint of any irregularity against the Committee of management. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. I am of the view that if Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration is interpreted in letter and spirit, then it would indicate that term of the office of Committee of Management is only 3 years, subject to extension by the Joint Director of Education for further period of 6 months. The extension of 6 months period is not automatic but it requires recording of reasons by the Joint Director of education that there exists inevitable circumstances beyond the control of Committee of management which prevented it to hold election within 3 years and after being satisfied of inevitable circumstances which prevented the Committee of Management to hold election within 3 years, the Joint Director of Education is to be further satisfied that there is no complaint of irregularity against the Committee of Management. In my humble opinion, unless the aforesaid conditions precedent are satisfied. 6 months period of tenure of the office of Committee of management will not be deemed to be extended automatically. ( 7 ) THE next question would be at whose behest six months extension is to be granted under clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution? In my humble opinion, unless the aforesaid conditions precedent are satisfied. 6 months period of tenure of the office of Committee of management will not be deemed to be extended automatically. ( 7 ) THE next question would be at whose behest six months extension is to be granted under clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution? ( 8 ) IT goes without saying that under Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration since the period of tenure of Committee of Management is only 3 years and election process is to start within 3 years by the Committee of Management in effective control of the Institution so that election of the Committee of Management may be concluded within 3 years. If the Committee of management, in effective control of the institution, thinks it proper that for inevitable circumstances the election is not possible, then it is to seek extension of 6 months period showing inevitable circumstances which prevented it to hold election within the period of 3 years. In its representation, the Committee of Management in actual control of the Institution is to disclose that no complaint relating irregularities committed by it is pending. On the representation of the Committee of Management, if Joint Director of Education is objectively satisfied he can extend further six months period directing to hold election within extended period. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid question can be viewed from a different angle. It is settled principle of law that if there are two possible Interpretations of a particular instrument and the Subordinate Authority has taken one of the views, even if a different view is also possible, then this Court will not substitute its interpretation in place of interpretation of Subordinate Authority. For interference in the writ petition, it is to be established that the interpretation put forth by the Subordinate authority is either perverse or based on non-existent ground. Interpretation of Subordinate authority can be said to be perverse and unconscionable only if it is demonstrated before this court that no prudent man can take such interpretation as has been taken by the Subordinate authority, Here in the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to establish that the interpretation taken by District Inspector of Schools and Joint Director of Education holding that term of the office of Committee of Management has come to an end on 23. 11. 11. 2001 is either perverse or unconscionable. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons discussed hereinabove, the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine with a direction to Prabandh Sanchalak to hold election to the Committee of management of the Institution expeditiously within reasonable period. .