( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal has been filed by the Committee of Management of the Bahudhandhi inter College, Sonahita, Jaunpur, and another against the judgment and order dated 9. 2. 2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 27005 of 2004. ( 2 ) TWO separate sets of elections are said to have been held on 28th September, 2003. Through one set, Dukhi Shukla claims to be the Manager while through the other set Sri Nanhkoo Ram yadav claims to be the Manager. The matter relating to the recognition of these rival Committee of Managements, said to have been elected on 28th September, 2003, came up for consideration before the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19th december, 2000. The Joint Director of Education by his order dated 23rd June, 2004 directed that since the aforesaid two elections were not held in accordance with the Scheme of administration and that the tenure of the earlier Committee of Management elected in the year 2000 came to an end after a period of three years and one month, fresh elections should be held under the amended Scheme of Administration by the Authorised Controller. Two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 27005 of 2004 and Writ Petition No. 27466 of 2004 were filed by the committee of Management of the College through Dukhi Shukla as Manager and through nanhkoo Ram Yadav as Manager respectively. Both these writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge. This Special Appeal has been filed by the Committee of Management through dukhi Shukla against the judgment and order of the learned Judge. ( 3 ) BAHUDHANDHI Inter College, Sonahita, Jaunpur, (hereinafter referred to as the College) is an institution governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Even prior to the holding of the elections on 28th September. 2003 in which two rival Committee of Managements have set up their claims, there was a dispute in respect of the earlier elections held on 27th August, 2000 in which both Dukhi Shukla and nanhkoo Ram Yadav claim to have been elected as Managers. The Joint Director of Education by his order dated 6th February, 2003 did not recognise the elections held on 27th August, 2004. This order dated 6th February, 2003 was challenged by Nanhkoo Ram Yadav in Writ Petition no. The Joint Director of Education by his order dated 6th February, 2003 did not recognise the elections held on 27th August, 2004. This order dated 6th February, 2003 was challenged by Nanhkoo Ram Yadav in Writ Petition no. 9489 of 2003 in which an order was passed by this Court on 24th April, 2003 that affidavits may be exchanged and the petition may be listed in the second week of July, 2003. It was further ordered that if the election is held, the same would abide by the final result of the writ petition. In the meantime, an order dated 29th September, 2003 was passed by the Joint Director of education/district Inspector of School, Jaunpur, staying the permission granted earlier on 10th september, 2003 to the petitioner/ appellant; to advertise the election program and this order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 47190 of 2003 in which the Court on 29th September, 2003 passed an order for filing affidavits. ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned Judge, the main question that arose for consideration was whether the election said to have been held on 28th September, 2003 in which Dukhi Shukla claims to have been elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management was held in accordance with the old Scheme of Administration applicable to the College or the new Scheme of Administration. This question assumed importance because of the fact that under the old Scheme of administration, the term of the Committee of Management was three years but the office bearers could continue until the holding of the fresh elections and there was no provision for appointment of an Authorised Controller. However, under the new Scheme of Administration the term of the Committee of Management is three years and in case a fresh election is not held within the period of one month thereafter, the Committee of Management will become defunct and the Authorised Controller would have to be appointed. The contention of the petitioner/appellant Committee of Management before the learned Judge was that the old scheme of Administration was applicable to the College. The learned Judge on the basis of the material available recorded a categorical finding that the College was governed by the amended scheme of Administration and on this finding he held that, neither of the two Committees could be recognised. The learned Judge on the basis of the material available recorded a categorical finding that the College was governed by the amended scheme of Administration and on this finding he held that, neither of the two Committees could be recognised. The learned Judge further observed as follows : "the elections said to have been held in the year 1994, 1997 and 2000 have not been recognised and the old committee of management said to have been elected in the year 1991 having become defunct it is the Prabandh Sanchalak to hold the elections. It is to be noted that even the elections of the year 2000 relied upon by Dukhi Shukla were not found valid by the Joint Director of education by order dated 6. 2. 2003. On these facts the view taken by the Regional Committee/ the Joint Director of Education in the order impugned appointing a Prabandh Sanchalak is correct. " ( 5 ) WE have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ravi Pratap for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri G. K. Singh learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and have perused the records. ( 6 ) SRI Ashok Khare learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant Committee of management submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the old Scheme of administration was not applicable in the College which in fact, was governed by the new scheme is incorrect. Sri G. K. Singh learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 Nanhkoo Ram Yadav and the learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in the aforesaid finding of the learned Judge. ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention the facts which persuaded the learned Judge to hold that the College was governed by the new Scheme of Administration. The learned Judge in this context noticed the admissions of Dukhi Shukla inasmuch as after the elections were held on 28th September, 2003, dukhi Shukla submitted an application to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 30th september, 2003 mentioning therein that the elections have been held according to the amended scheme. This apart, in paragraph 5 of the writ petition filed by Dukhi Shukla, being Writ Petition no. This apart, in paragraph 5 of the writ petition filed by Dukhi Shukla, being Writ Petition no. 27005 of 2004, it has also been mentioned that the term of the Committee is three years and one month. The learned Judge observed that this term of three years and one month is not contemplated under the old Scheme and obviously the reference is to the provisions of the amended Scheme. Apart from the aforesaid admissions, the learned Judge also noticed that the strength of the members of the Committee of Management constituted by Dukhi Shukla, correspond to the size of the Committee contemplated under the amended Scheme and not with the old Scheme of Administration. ( 8 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the aforesaid finding of the learned Judge is incorrect and in support of his contention he invited our attention to Clause 5 of the old Scheme of Administration in which, according to him, the strength of the members of the Committee of Management is also 15 and not 11 as held by the learned Judge. ( 9 ) WE have carefully perused the Clause 5 of the old Scheme of Administration and find that the strength of the members is only 11 as is clear from Sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Scheme of administration. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of the Scheme of Administration merely describes who shall be the Office Bearers, Ex-Officio Members and Ordinary Members and from the same it is apparent that there are four Office Bearers, three Ex-Officio Members and four Ordinary members. Thus the strength of the members is only 11 and not 15 as sought to be contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. However, under the new Scheme of Administration the strength of the members is 15 and the strength of the members of the Committee of management said to have been constituted on the basis of the elections held on 29th September, 2003 is 15. Thus there is no error in the findings of the learned Judge. ( 10 ) WE have also carefully perused the application dated 30th September, 2003 sent by Dukhi shukla to the District Inspector of Schools and find that the petitioner has clearly stated that the elections had been held according to the amended scheme. Thus there is no error in the findings of the learned Judge. ( 10 ) WE have also carefully perused the application dated 30th September, 2003 sent by Dukhi shukla to the District Inspector of Schools and find that the petitioner has clearly stated that the elections had been held according to the amended scheme. This apart in paragraph 5 of the writ petition the petitioner has also referred to the term of the Committee of Management as 3 years and 1 month which could be possible only under the amended Scheme of Administration. ( 11 ) WE are, therefore, unable to uphold the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that it is the old Scheme of Administration which would govern the College and not the new Scheme of Administration. There is, therefore, no error in the finding recorded by the learned Judge that it is the new Scheme of Administration, which would govern the College. ( 12 ) SRI Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the appellants then contended that there could be no automatic amendment of the Scheme of Administration and in support of his contentions he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Shahid Mangal pandey Inter College, Nagwa, District Ballia and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (1994) 2 uplbec 1348. In the said decision, the learned Judge held as follows : "in my opinion, a conjoint reading of Sections 16-A, 16-B (3), 16-C, 16-CCC read with Section 16-D (3) (vii) of the Act would make it abundantly clear that the amendment or modification suggested by the Director either under Section 16-C or under Section 16-CCC would not automatically be deemed to have been made in the already approved Scheme of Administration. The only way to get the suggested amendments or modifications made in the already approved scheme of Administration is to appoint Authorised Controller under Sub-section (3) (vii) read with Sub-section (4) of Section 16-D of the Act and to get the suggested alterations or amendments made in the approved Scheme of administration through the Authorised Controller, but so long as the Scheme of Administration is not so amended, the already approved Scheme of administration would continue to be operative except in so far as it is inconsistent with the principle laid down in the third schedule as provided in Section 16-CC of the Act. The already approved Scheme of Administration, in so far as it is inconsistent with the principle laid down in the third schedule, shall automatically cease to be inoperative. " ( 13 ) IN the present case, the Joint Director of Education had filed a short counter-affidavit in the writ petition and in paragraph 7 of this affidavit it has been stated that in connection with the amendment of the Scheme of Administration of the College, a communication dated 1st June, 1981 was sent to the Manager which is evident from the dispatch register maintained in the office. It has also been stated that in the College located in the Varanasi Division, letters had been sent to the Colleges to amend their Scheme of Administration and such Colleges, which had not done so and even in respect of those Colleges which could not co-operates, such amendments had been incorporated the Scheme of Administration but the original file was not traceable in the office. In view of the averments made in the aforesaid affidavit and in view of the clear admission of the petitioner/ appellants in the communication dated 30th September, 2003 to the District Inspector of Schools that the elections had been held under the amended scheme of Administration and the averments contained in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the term of the Committee of Management is three years and looking to the strength of the members of the Committee of Management which is in accordance with the amended scheme and not in accordance with the old scheme, we are of the opinion that the Scheme of administration of the College had been amended. The decision in case of Committee of management, Shahid Mangal Pandey Inter College (supra), therefore, does not help the petitioner at all. ( 14 ) SRI G. K. Singh learned counsel appearing for Nanhkoo Ram Yadav, has placed reliance upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. Deputy director of Education and Ors. , 2004 (4) ESC 2257 in support of his contention that even if there is no provision in the Scheme of Administration for appointment of an Authorised Controller, then too, in case the Regional Deputy Director of Education find that the elections of both the rival Committees are invalid, he may appoint an Authorised Controller who shall expeditiously hold elections and manage the affairs of the College until a lawfully elected Committee of management is available for taking over the management. Paragraph 37 of the aforesaid Full bench judgment is as follows : "the scheme of the Act provides for management of the educational institution by a validly elected Committee of Management, in terms of the Scheme of Administration under Section 16-A, which under Section 16-CC is not to be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the third Schedule. The Committee of Management exercises important statutory functions under the Act and the U. P. Act of 1971. It has been given powers to make ad hoc appointments on class III posts, determination of seniority, notification of vacancies to the District Inspector of schools, preparation and submission of salary bills etc. It is also entrusted with the Government funds, for the purposes of maintenance and payment of salaries. Where the persons are not found to be validly elected office-bearers, they cannot be allowed to manage and administer the institution only on the ground that they are in actual physical control over the affairs of the institution. In the circumstances, we hold that where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the elections of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control and to recognise one or the other committees. In such circumstances, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh sanchalak), the Dy. Director (or Jt. In such circumstances, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh sanchalak), the Dy. Director (or Jt. Director, as the case may be) may appoint an administrator with direction to hold elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is no such provision he may appoint an Authorised Controller, who shall expeditiously hold elections and manage the affairs of the institution until a lawfully elected Committee of management is available for taking over the management. " ( 15 ) IN the present case, the Joint Director of Education in his order dated 23rd June, 2004 has clearly held that the elections of both the rival Committees are invalid and, therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the said decision, no fault can be found with the order of the Joint director of Education in appointing the Authorised Controller. ( 16 ) WE are, therefore, unable to find any infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned judge. ( 17 ) THE Special Appeal is, according, dismissed. . .